Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bermondsey Borough Council (Street Trading) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

Pontefract Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

LONDON OMNIBUS SERVICES (PETITIONS).

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I beg leave to present a Petition, signed by no fewer than 97,230 citizens of West London, showing that, whereas efforts are being made to draw the attention of this honourable House to the proposed reduction rendering travelling facilities inadequate in West London, and whereas proposals have now been submitted to the Minister of Transport to curtail travelling facilities by reducing omnibus services on the Uxbridge Road and other West London roads, the petitioners pray that, pending complete ownership by a public authority of all trams, omnibuses add tubes in the London traffic area, no steps should be taken which would increase the difficulties of the travelling public, and tend to leave them entirely dependent upon a privately - owned monopoly.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I beg to present a Petition signed by 535,755 citizens of London praying in the same sense as referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney).

Colonel APPLIN: I beg to present a Petition signed by 168,893 citizens of North London, in the same terms.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: I beg to present, a Petition signed by 111,961 citizens of West London, also in the same terms.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

NEGOTIATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state any progress in the negotiations with Turkey; who is conducting these negotiations; whether the representatives of His Majesty's Government have a free hand in these negotiations; or whether they have been instructed to treat only on the basis of the League of Nations' decision on the Mosul question?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): His Majesty's Ambassador in Turkey has now returned to this country in order to consult with His Majesty's Government on this subject, and, pending the result of these consultations, I should prefer to make no statement on the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANATOLIAN RAILWAY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which Powers participated in the joint Note to the Turkish Government on the question of the Anatolian Railway and what were its objects and terms?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: On the 4th November, 1924, the British, French and Italian diplomatic representatives at Constantinople presented to the Turkish Government a joint Note enclosing a statement of sums due from the Turkish Government to the Anatolian Railway Company in respect of the period of its control by the Inter-Allied Railway Commission. Since that date no other joint Note on the question of the Anatolian Railway has been presented to the Turkish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COMMERCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS, CONSTANTINOPLE,

Viscount SANDON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken with reference to the attitude of the Turkish Government towards the Ionian Bank and other British commercial and educational establishments in Constantinople?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I informed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) on the 8th March, His Majesty's Ambassador in Turkey recently proceeded to Angora to take up these questions with the Turkish Government. Sir Ronald Lindsay made strong representations on the subject of the Turkish Government's treatment of the Ionian Bank and other British commercial and educational establishments in Constantinople to the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and obtained certain assurances from him that the provisions of the Establishment Convention of Lausanne would be observed. Sir Ronald Lindsay is at present in this country in order to consult with His Majesty's Government on various questions concerned with their policy towards Turkey, and I regret that I cannot make any further statement at the present stage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this all part of the whole trouble with Turkey, and, if we come to a proper settlement with Turkey, will not this and cognate questions be automatically arranged?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot say. All these questions form part of the general question which is now being discussed with the Ambassador.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a further statement with regard to the closing of the English High School for Girls at Constantinople?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which I have just given to the noble Lord the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon).

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGLISH HORSES (CONTINENTALSALE CERTIFICATES).

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that English horses are being sold from Holland to Germany with false certificates that are imitations of certificates issued by the Hackney Horse Society, which provides for the registration and purity of this valuable breed; and if, in the public interest, he will endeavour to prevent this practice?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Allegations of the nature indicated by the hon. and gallant Member have reached me, and I am making inquiries as to the possibility of official action.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE REPUBLIC (BRITISHREPRESENTATIVE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the decision of His Majesty's Government not to raise the status of His Majesty's legation at Buenos Aires to that of an embassy has been accepted by Argentina as consonant with the excellent relations prevailing between the two countries?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The true character of Anglo-Argentine relations has been indicated and emphasised by the recent visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to this great republic, whose increasing importance is fully realised by His Majesty's Government. They believe that relations of such unbroken amity are, in the view of both countries, at once too intimate and too practical to have been either effected or affected by any particular category of diplomatic representation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAVE TRAFFIC, RED SEA.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the operations of His Majesty's vessels in the Red Sea for the suppression of the slave traffic, where these slaves come from, where it is endeavoured to send them, and through what territories they pass; and which of the territories through which they pass are under British control or under the control of Other European Powers?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Reports from Arabia show that shipments of slaves are smuggled across the Red Sea to Southern Arabia in native dhows from time to time. So far as it known, these slaves are mostly Abyssinians, but, unless the slave dhows are intercepted in transit, their ports of origin and destination cannot be established. His Majesty's ships in the Red Sea, in collaboration with ships of the French and Italian navies, are constantly on the look-out for these dhows, but are rarely able to effect a capture of the nature described in Command Paper 1858 of 1923, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: May I point out that the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question fully? These Abyssinian slaves must pass through some territory to the sea; through whose territory do they pass?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly the difficulty which I have tried to describe in my answer. Unless these slaves are actually intercepted on their war across, it is impossible to say exactly through which territory they pass.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: These slave dhows are occasionally captured, and that means that there is information showing through which territory they have come; would it not be easier to stop the slaves there?

Mr. THURTLE: Is it possible that these slaves are just as mythical as the Russian troops who came to this country?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No!

Mr. FORREST: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any other nation is co-operating in the suppression of slave traffic in the Red Sea or whether the task is left solely to Great Britain?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: France and Italy are so co-operating.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE (NATIVE LABOUR).

Brigadier- General CHARTERIS: 8.
asks d the First Lord of the Admiralty if his Department is making arrangements for the recruitment of native labour for
the construction of the Singapore Dockyard; and what steps have been taken to ensure that the available supply of labour for local industries is not unduly depleted?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): It is not necessary to make any special arrangements at present, as the numbers of men now employed are sufficient for immediate requirements. The Admiralty officers will consult with the Colonial Government if it becomes necessary to engage any considerable additional number of men.

Colonel DAY: What wages do these men receive?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. PALING: Is there anything of a compulsory nature about the recruitment?

Captain CROOKSHANK (for Mr. PENNY): 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the nationalities of the labourers employed upon the construction of the naval base at Singapore how many of each nationality have been recruited locally; and how many of them have been specially imported for Admiralty work?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I regret that I could not reply to the first part of the question without inquiry from Signapore. The laborers employed are all recruited locally.

BISCUITS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in placing contracts for the supply of biscuits, he will insert a Clause that will ensure a proportion of British-grown wheat, barley or other grain being employed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Biscuits for Navy use are made from wheat flour. They are purchased to general trade standards, and it is not considered desirable to introduce any stipulation as to the wheat from which the flour is produced. I may add that the requirements of biscuit are comparatively small.

EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. COUPER: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the total
expenditure in the last financial year on naval organisation and services in Scotland; and what proportion it bears to the total expenditure on the Navy in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland during the same year?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I regret that the accounts of the Navy are not kept in a way which enables an analysis of this kind to be made.

ROYAL MARINE DEPOT, DEAL (DEATHS).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many deaths have occurred during the past six months at the Royal Marine Depot, Deal, Kent; how many have met their deaths by drowning; how many have died in hospital; and whether any and, if so, how many, recruits have committed suicide?

Mr. DAVIDSON: During the past six months there have been two deaths at the Depot, Royal Marines, Dead Hospital. No deaths by drowning or suicide have occurred. One determined attempt at suicide has been made, and there have been three pretended attempts at suicide.

NEW ENTRANTS (PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state, in order to alleviate anxiety in this matter, if a decision has been arrived at with regard to the question of reduction in the present rates of naval pensions, and when it is contemplated that a decision will be reached?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The question of revising the scale of pensions for new entrants is still under consideration, and I am afraid I am not in a position to say how soon a decision will be reached.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ESTABLISHMENT).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the numbers of men established in His Majesty's dockyards in the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925 are considerably short of the numbers established in the years immediately prior to the War, he can hold out any hope that more men will be able to look forward to establishment in the near future?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer is in the negative.

SHORT-SERVICE MEN.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the new short-service men will be taught a trade or trades during their seven years' service; or if the vocational training at the end of their service will be so extended as to give the men a chance of qualifying for work when time-expired?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The existing scheme of vocational training is intended primarily for men in the second period of their engagement, and under existing Orders special service seamen and continuous service men in their first period are on the same footing, in that receive less advantage from the scheme than do second period men. I am unable to say to what extent it may be possible to extend the benefits of the vocational training scheme by the time the first new system special service seamen are drafted to the Royal Fleet Reserve in seven years' time.

Sir B. FALLE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is intended to introduce two standards of efficiency between boys trained from the age of 15 and rated as men at 18, and the new short-service men taken on at 18; if he has considered the difficulties that will arise from the existence of these two standards; if he will give the age limit of entrance of the new short-service men; and if they will be trained afloat or ashore?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore arise. As regards the third and fourth parts, the age limit will be from 18 to 25, and preliminary training will be given on shore.

Sir B. FALLE: My hon. Friend says it does not arise. Does he mean that the men who were taken at 18 were in the same position at that age as the boys who were taken at 15 and trained?

Mr. DAVIDSON: That is the opinion.

Sir B. FALLE: Three years' training goes for nothing ! Then why train them?

MALTA HARBOUR (UNFOUNDED REPORT).

Major BIRCHALL: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware
that on 23rd January there appeared in the Press a report that a naval officer, whose name was given, and four seamen, had been drowned in Malta Harbour; that this information was broadcast; that two days later the Admiralty published a denial of the statement, in which there was no truth; and can he take steps to prevent the publication of incorrect statements of this character in future?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of this regrettable incident, the responsibility for which rests with a news agency which circulated a false report without taking any steps to get official confirmation. The falsehood was published in the Saturday evening papers. The Admiralty having obtained a telegraphic report from Malta during Saturday night, circulated a, denial on Sunday, which was broadcast by the British Broadcasting Company the same evening, but the Press could not publish it until Monday. I understand the relatives had been informed, that there was doubt about the report.
No power exists to compel the Press to authenticate rumours before publishing them, but arrangements have existed for many years at the Admiralty, and are well known to the Press, by which inquiries as to reports of this kind can be dealt with at any hour of the day or night. The Admiralty can only urge the importance of making use of these arrangements in the public interest. The failure to do so in this instance inflicted the most cruel distress as well as considerable expense on a number of people.

Colonel DAY: As the Admiralty received this news on the Saturday, could not they have broadcast it on Saturday evening?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What I said was that they had received the false news on Saturday. They saw it in the newspapers an Saturday, and made inquiries on Saturday night. On Sunday—which was the first time they could do anything—they broadcast the correct news. In the meantime, I understand, they had also informed the relatives that there was grave doubt about this report.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to these relatives that they have probably a very good claim for damages against the newspaper for the shock inflicted on them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that is a matter for me.

FRANCE AND GERMANY (NAVALPROGRAMMES).

Captain FAIRFAX: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to Command Paper 2590, whether he is aware that French official documents give only 41 submarines as against 45 on the Paper; that the German constructive programme includes one cruiser and six destroyers not mentioned on the Paper, and that these and other statistics are the subject of unfavourable comment in France; and whether he will make further investigations, and correct any mistakes that are verified?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Admiralty are not aware of any French official documents which give the figures for submarines quoted in the question, although I know the figures in the White Paper have been called in question in the French Press. As regards Germany, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 9th March to the hon. Member for Torquay (O.R. 2129).

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ADMIRALTY (PRINTING AND STATIONERY).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain the reason of the increase in the estimated cost of stationery and printing from £186,000 in 1925 to £210,000 for 1926?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The Estimate of £186,000 for 1925–26 was too optimistic. It is now estimated that the expenditure for the current financial year will be about £202,000. The actual expenditure for the previous year amounted to about £207,000. In the forthcoming year there is an addition of £8,800 for the cost of engraving charts, which is transferred for the first time from Navy Vote 6 to the Vote for Stationery and Printing. This accounts for the Estimate of £210,000 for the next financial year.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Is there any special reason for the increase?

Mr. McNEILL: I have just given my hon. Friend the reason.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any definite reason for the large increase in printing and stationery, and is it not possible to reduce it?

Mr. McNEILL: It was under-estimated last year.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is not my right hon. Friend of opinion that he would get greater efficiency, greater economy and greater despatch if he would put the work out to contract?

Sir F. HALL: Is it necessary that so much stationery should be issued to Members of the House?

FOREIGN MATERIALS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the percentage value of all foreign materials and stores purchased during the last financial year?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): Figures are not available for the last financial year, but from returns compiled for the 12 months ended 31st October, 1925, the value of foreign materials and stores purchased by the Office of Works was approximately 1 per cent. of the total purchases made directly by this Department. A proportion of these purchases was for buildings abroad.

NEW BUILDINGS, WHITEHALL GARDENS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what economy, if any, he anticipates will be made by the building of the new offices on the Thames Embankment at the hack of Montage House; what is the estimated cost of the new buildings; and what is their expected life?

Captain HACKING: I would refer my hon. and gallant. Friend to the replies that I made to questions upon this subject upon the 8th instant.

Sir F. WISE: What was the reduction in the expenditure?

Captain HACKING: That was stated in my last reply.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received any application from the London County Council asking his Department to convert the gardens at the rear of the offices in Whitehall Gardens into an open space; and, if so, whether he can make any statement in regard to this matter?

Captain HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

TEMPORARY TYPING STAFF.

Mr. CADOGAN: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, before the final staffing arrangements of Government Departments are completed, he proposes to extend to the temporary typing staff facilities for entry into the permanent Civil Service similar to those already granted to the temporary shorthand typing staff, namely, by means of a limited competitive examination open to all temporary typists up to the age of 40 years?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the question of offering to the temporary typists and shorthand typists some sort of security of tenure in the same way as he has done for the temporary women clerks?

Mr. McNEILL: With the permission of the hon. Members, I will answer these questions together, and I would refer them to the reply which I gave on the 15th March to the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask in reference to that reply whether the right hon. Gentleman does not think that Government Departments are already greatly over-staffed, and ought to be cut down?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, I have not said so.

TRADE BOARDS ACTS.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 21 and 22.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) what proportion of waitresses are shown by the results of his recent investigation in the light refreshment and dining-room section of the catering trade to be receiving wages,
exclusive of tips, of 20s. per week or less, 15s. per week or less, and 15s. per week or less respectively; and what is the average amount of tips received per week by such waitresses in the light refreshment section of the trade and in the dining-room section of the trade respectively;
(2) whether, in view of his decision that wages and conditions in the grocery, catering, drapery, and meat distributive trades do not call for action under the Trade Boards Acts, he will state what evidence is required to prove the existence of sweating in any trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The reports shortly to be published will contain a summary of the information available with regard to wages and conditions in the catering trade and the other trades mentioned, and will disclose the facts on the basis of which the Government came to their decision.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will that report contain information showing not only the tips which may or may not be granted to these people, but the deductions made by the employers for various reasons out of their weekly wages?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, the question of tipping is gone into.

Mr. PALING: Is it considered that there is no sweating in these trades?

Mr. BETTERTON: I would ask the hon. Member to wait till he sees the Report, which embraces the whole subject.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: When will the Report be available to Members of the House?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will it be laid before the Easter Recess?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to two—meat and drapery—in a few days. The other two Reports will follow shortly after.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Colonel DAY: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men registered as
unemployed at the Newcastle-on-Tyne Employment Exchange who have been refused benefit during the last three months on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the period 15th December, 1925, to 8th March, 1926, 353 applications by men for extended benefit were recommended for disallowance by the Newcastle-on-Tyne Local Employment Committee, on the ground that the applicants were not making every reasonable effort to secure suitable employment. I am unable to state how many applications for standard benefit were rejected on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking work.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large body of Teen are daily marching through the gates of the Tyneside shipbuilding and engineering works for work they cannot get, and still they are being refused benefit on that ground?

Mr. BETTERTON: No doubt all those questions are taken into consideration by the local committees.

Mr. LANSBURY: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour why Mr. E. Shiers, of 77, Rippoth Road, Bow, has been refused unemployment standard benefit by the Hackney Employment Exchange?

Mr. BETTERTON: The applicant, who is 20 years of age and single, had no title to standard benefit, having already received more than all the benefit for which he had paid contributions. The claim to extended benefit was disallowed by the committee under the administrative rules relating to persons living at home with relatives.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman go into the ease again, because the information I have is that he had 30 stamps on his card.

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend went into the case, and it appears he had 90 days' benefit since 1923.

Mr. LANSBURY: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour on what evidence the Exchange authorities decided that Mr. A. Danby, of 35, Candy Street, Bow, was not genuinely seeking work; is he aware that when summoned before the committee
the main question asked this man was how old he was, and that the investigation lasted only three minutes; and whether, in view of the man's declaration that he has proof of his diligent search for work, he will allow an appeal to the Umpire?

Mr. BETTERTON: I assume the reference is to Mr. A. Davey. His claim which was for extended benefit, was disallowed by the Committee on the ground that he could not show a reasonable period of employment in the last two years. There is no provision for appeal to the Umpire in such cases. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member by letter on 25th February, he has looked into this case and sees no ground for disagreeing with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr. W. THORNE: If they are seeking work and give the time and date and place where they made application, will that be taken into consideration?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to this particular case, the disallowance was not on the ground stated in the question, that he was not genuinely seeking work, but on the other statutory ground, that he had not had a reasonable amount of employment, under Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Act.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has there been a new order issued that unemployment benefit paid, say, two years ago is taken into consideration, say, for this last year—that you set against the payments paid out the payments the man pays in during the current year?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think the hon. Member is referring to the question before this. That, I think, has always been the rule.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of separate individuals who have been disallowed benefit since the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, came into operation; how many of these persons are now in employment; how many are now on the live register; and how many are not on the live register and are not believed to be in employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: Statistics do not exist with regard to the number of
separate individuals whose claims to benefit have been disallowed. The only statistics in this connection are for numbers of applications disallowed, and as the same person may have repeated claims disallowed, these numbers are considerably larger than the numbers of separate individuals concerned. On 8th February, 81,450 persons, whose claims remained disallowed at that date, were still on the registers of Employment Exchanges. It is calculated that at the end of January the number of disqualified persons not on the register though remaining unemployed was approximately 10,000 greater than at the end of the previous July.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. Member tell us whether his Department keeps any record of the number of those who were refused benefit solely on the ground of not genuinely seeking employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not sure, but I will let my hon. Friend know. I think we have a record, but I would not like to trust to my memory.

Mr. JONES: It is very important that the House and the country should get accurate information—

HON. MEMBERS: "Speech:"

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put down a Question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I accurate in assuming that the difference between the total number of unemployed and the number on the live register is not more than 10,000?

Mr. BETTERTON: I said in my answer that at the end of January it was calculated that the number of disqualified persons not, on the register, though remaining unemployed, was, approximately, 10,000 greater than at the end of the previous July.

Mr. ROSE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour the actual number of disabled ex-service men who have been refused extended benefit in Aberdeen for the period 1st July, 1925, to the 18th March, 1926?

Mr. BETTERTON: Separate statistics of the disallowance of claims for extended benefit made by disabled ex-service men are not available.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Member aware of the universal discontent about this matter, and will not his Department and the Ministry of Health make some effort to try to deal with it?

Mr. BETTERTON: That matter is now under the consideration of my right hon. Friend, as he stated the other day in the House.

EXTENDED BENEFIT (WOMEN).

Mr. LANSBURY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state to the House the name of the firm, the rates of pay, and conditions offered to the 12 women dealt with at the Mansell Street Exchange, in order to test their willingness to work; how many women to whom extended benefit had been refused were offered similar work or training; and how many, if any, accepted or refused such work?

Mr. BETTERTON: The offer of work to which I referred in my speech on the 10th March was with Messrs. Glanfield and Sons, Limited, at not less than the minimum Trade Board rates, with a promise of special tuition for fur workers. Between 22nd February and 12th March 11 women who had been refused extended benefit were offered this or similar work: five refused the offer, two of the others are understood to be still in the job; one left after three and a-half clays, and another after four hours. One was not accepted by the employer. As regards the eleventh, it is not yet known whether the firm have engaged the applicant. I regret that in the Debate on 10th March I stated incorrectly that the 12 women were those whose names have been given by the hon. Member in two recent questions: only two of these women were included among the 12.

GIRLS (BENEFIT).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of girls under 18 years of age who are now receiving unemployment benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: At 1st March, 10,457 girls in Great Britain aged 16 and 17 had claims to unemployment benefit current, but I cannot say how many of them were actually in receipt of benefit at that date.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the hon. Member say how many boys are out of employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is not the Question on the Paper.

EXCHANGES.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the selection of premises for Employment Exchanges is based upon a policy of permanent or a policy of temporary Exchanges being provided?

Mr. BETTERTON: The general policy in towns in which Exchanges are situated is to secure the minimum accommodation likely to be required over a period of years. In many places, owing to the volume of unemployment, this minimum accommodation is insufficient and the additional accommodation necessary is provided as far as possible by temporary hirings.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Does the Department take into consideration the districts where there has been more or less permanent unemployment on a large scale for the last few years, and that many of the buildings where people have to wait in queues in all kinds of weather are not adequate for shelter?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is true that some of the buildings are not as desirable as we could wish. This is a matter which is constantly under consideration, in conjunction with the Office of Works.

Mr. HARRIS: Are not some of the temporary wooden buildings used in London liable to be burned down and the records destroyed? Would not that be a serious matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: No doubt all temporary building are liable to that danger.

HOLLESLEY BAY FARM COLONY.

Mr. HARRIS: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make more use of Hollesley Bay farm colony for the training of men; and whether he can use the services of the central unemployed body to develop other schemes for the training and employment of out-of-work men in the London area?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any suggestions
which the hon. Member may feel able to make, but doubts whether it will be practicable to make more use of the colony than at present. With regard to the last part of the question, perhaps I may refer to the last paragraph of the reply to the hon. Member's previous similar question of the 11th March. My right hon. Friend regrets that he does not see any way in which the activities of the central body can usefully be extended.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that Hollesley Bay is run at a very small charge, and that the men turned out do become wage-earners and get jobs? Does it not seem unreasonable that more men should not be taken on at this colony so as to extend the scope of the work?

Sir K. WOOD: The first supplementary question is a matter of opinion. With regard to the second, I doubt very much whether it is possible to make any further use of the colony at the present time.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Labour to see what can be done?

Sir K. WOOD: I am always happy to consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the central unemployed body to give a report of the work done since 1919?

Sir K. WOOD: I will look into that matter. As far as I remember— I used to be a member of that body— it used to make an annual report.

Mr. LANSBURY: Cannot the report be made available for Members of the House, so that they can judge of the value of the work?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there will be any difficulty in obtaining a report.

EXTENDED BENEFIT (MIDDLESBROUGH).

Mr. P. HARRIS (for Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON): 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for extended benefit in the Middlesbrough area during the last six months, and the number granted and refused, and similar figures for corresponding period a year ago?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the six months ended 8th March, 1926, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the Middlesbrough Local Employment Committee was 25,776, of which, 21,923 were recommended for allowance and 3,853 for disallowance. The corresponding figures for the six months ended 9th March, 1925, were: applications considered 22,485, allowed 21,151, disallowed 1,334.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES.

Mr. G. HARVEY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how much of the total expenditure on aircraft and engines provided for in the Estimates is to be used on the construction of new aircraft and new engines and how much on the doing up of existing machines and engines; and is it intended that a considerable percentage of the money should be spent on wartime machines?

Sir F. HALL: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the sum of £2,888,000, provided in the Air Estimates for 1926–27 for complete machines, represents contemplated expenditure on entirely new aeroplanes and seaplanes; and, if so, will he state what number of machines of each of these classes will be provided for this sum?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): I will answer these questions together, the same considerations being applicable to aircraft and to engines. I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave on 10th March to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich.

Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the last part of my question—" what number of machines of each of these classes will be provided for this sum "?

Sir P. SASSOON: Foreign Powers do not publish the amount they spend on engines, and it has not been the practice of the Air Ministry to do so either.

Sir F. HALL: Are we not to have the information?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many aeroplanes there are in commission and in reserve in the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: The present first line strength of aircraft in regular squadrons of the Royal Air Force is 658 machines. In addition, the existing auxiliary and special reserve squadrons have an establishment of 58 first line machines. It would not be in the public interest to state the number of aircraft in reserve.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we right in assuming that the information that we lave not more then 2,424 is still correct?

Sir P. SASSOON: I believe that some figure did appear, but I am afraid that I cannot give any more information than I have.

AMERICAN-BUILT AEROPLANES.

Captain GUNSTON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of American-built aeroplanes flying over the Allied lines on the date of the Armistice?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have no official information upon this subject, hut I am informed that in a book by an American author who had access to official records it is stated that 10 of the American squadrons (of 18 machines each) at the front were equipped with American-built machines on 1st November, 1918.

BISCUITS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in placing contracts for the supply of biscuits, he will insert a Clause that will ensure a proportion of British-grown wheat, barley, or other grain being employed?

Sir P. SASSOON: Contracts for biscuits are not placed by the Air Ministry, supplies being drawn under Army contracts.

TIMBER AND STEEL (HALTON).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the amount of timber used at Halton by the mechanics for 1925; and where it was purchased;
(2) the tonnage of steel used by the mechanics at Halton in 1925; and where it was purchased?

Sir P. SASSOON: The approximate quantities used at Halton in 1925 were: steel, 16 tons; steel tubing, 470 feet; timber, 7,750 cubic feet; plywood, 3,000 superficial feet. I regret that it is not possible without undue labour to give particulars of origin of the many parcels of material involved.

Sir F. WISE: Can the hon. and gallant Member state the principal place where the steel is purchased?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think that most of the material comes from this country. I cannot, without notice, give the names of the exact contractors who supply it.

Sir F. WISE: That is asked in my question.

Sir P. SASSOON: We had great difficulty in the short time available in getting the information for which the hon. Member asked. If he will put dawn another question, I will try to get the information.

CADETS TRAINING (COST).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether in their Second Report the Public Accounts Committee comment upon the average cost of training cadets at Cranwell as materially higher than that at military training colleges; and whether, as the number of cadets has been reduced, the number of the staff has decreased in like proportion?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am aware of the disproportion of cost referred to in the fast part of my hon. Friend's question, and I explained the reasons for it in my reply to the hon. Member for Rusholme on 24th February. The establishment of Cranwell has been reduced, and I hope that the figure of average cost will be less in future, but with our smaller numbers and the more technical character of the instruction given, the cost per cadet is inevitably higher than at Sandhurst or the more comparable military establishment at Woolwich. As regards the second part of the question, the average strength of cadets during the two last financial years has been 106, and the number estimated for in the coming financial year is 109. There is thus no reduction in the number of cadets, but, on the other hand, the staff has been reduced since June, 1925.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Is it a fact, is stated in this House, that the number of cadets has been reduced by 30 per cent. and the staff by 7½ per cent.; and in view of that fact is it not possible to reduce the staff to the same amount?

Sir P. SASSOON: As I say in my answer, it has been reduced.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this reduction does not include the cost of flying, but simply the cost of looking after the cadets, the same as at Woolwich and Sandhurst, and can he give any explanation why it is so much higher?

PRIVATE CIVIL FLYING.

Colonel DAY: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any action is contemplated with a view to greater freedom being afforded to those who desire to use their own aeroplanes for purposes of experimental tests, business, or pleasure; and whether the Royal Aeronautical Society and the Air League will be asked for their opinions as to a greater measure of freedom from official interference?

Sir P. SASSOON: The question of the possible relaxation of some of the existing Regulations governing private civil flying has been the subject of discussion with representatives of the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Air League and other aeronautical bodies, and the views expressed are now being most carefully considered by the. Air Ministry.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that the restrictive Regulations of the Air Ministry are the cause of private flying being hampered, and that they are in such a moribund condition?

Sir P. SASSOON: As I said in my answer, the whole matter is being looked into.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he hopes to be able to give us definite information?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are inquiring into the subject and I hope we shall be able to report in a short time.

EMPIRE AIR COMMUNICATIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, following the successful flights which have been and are being made from North to South Africa, and vice versa, it is the intention of his Department to develop further aviation in that continent; and, if so, whether he can give the House any outline of future plans?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question. As I stated when introducing the Air Estimates, I am most anxious to further by all possible means the development of Empire air communications. Something has already been done in this direction in Africa. Proposals are under consideration for the establishment of an air service from Khartum to Kisumu, and I understand that a recent conference of Colonial Governors at Nairobi approved in principle the granting of financial assistance for an experimental service on this route. The question of the establishment of a regular service, with an extension in due course to Cairo, will depend upon the result of the experiment and the prospects of adequate financial support. The development of aviation in the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia is, of course, primarily a matter for the Governments concerned, but I propose to take the opportunity afforded by the Imperial Conference next October to discuss with the Dominion representatives the question of Imperial air routes and their future development.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether there will be a regular plan laid before the Imperial Conference for this service?

Sir P. SASSOON: I should imagine so. The whole matter will be thrashed out

ANGLO-FRENCH SEAPLANE SERVICE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any negotiations have taken place between this country and France in respect of a service of British seaplanes between English and French ports; and what is the situation to-day?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir; there has been no development since my reply of 18th February last.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Member try to create a service between Southampton and the French ports, as it would be a very great convenience.

Sir P. SASSOON: The Imperial Airways Company, who would deal with this question, are confining themselves at present to the line between Southampton and the Channel Islands.

LEGITIMACY BILL.

Captain CAZALET: 45.
asked the Prime Minster if the Government has yet decided when they will introduce the Legitimacy Bill in another place?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My Noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to introduce this Bill at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister the result of his conference with the Leaders of the other parties with regard to the proposal to broadcast the Budget speech; and whether, in that case, he will give the decision reached, together with the motives actuating it?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question on Monday next, when I hope to be in a position to reply to it.

Mr. REMER: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which date he intends to open his Budget?

Mr. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce the date.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE PRODUCE (MARKETING).

Mr. BOOTHBY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister why the proposed grant of £1,000,000 for Empire marketing has been reduced to £500,000; and whether the Dominion Governments were informed of the decision to reduce this grant, and the reasons for it, before it was announced?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. As I informed the House in reply to a number of question on let March last, His Majesty's Government hope to be in
a position to make an announcement on this subject at an early date, and that announcement will cover the point raised by my hon. Friend as to the amount for which provision has been made in the Estimates for the next financial year. With regard to the second part of the question the Dominion Governments were informed beforehand.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (GERMANY).

Sir F. HALL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister what powers of control are still retained by the Allies with regard to disarmament and naval, military and aircraft development on the part of Germany; and what machinery exists for exercising those powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware that the powers of control in Germany conferred upon the ex-Allied Governments were confined by Article 203 of the Treaty of Versailles to the supervision of the execution of those military, naval and air Clauses for the execution of which a time limit was prescribed. The position to-day is that the Naval Commission of Control, having completed its task, was withdrawn in September, 1924. The Military Commission of Control has been considerably reduced and will be completely withdrawn so soon as the programme of requirements agreed upon with the German Government and laid down in the Note addressed by the Ambassadors' Conference to the German Government on 16th November last has been carried out. The Aeronautical Commission of Control, having completed its work, was, in agreement with the German Government, replaced in 1922 by a Committee of Guarantee, whose task is to ensure that aeronautical development in Germany does not infringe the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Negotiations are now in progress with a view to withdrawing the Committee as soon as Germany's obligations in regard to future aeronautical development have been defined in agreement between the ex-Allied Governments and Germany.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government consider it necessary or advisable to exercise control over the future development of the aircraft policy of Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that is provided for in Article 213.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention had been called to the statement on page 12 of the Report by the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, that if the iron and steel industries had been working to full capacity they would have consumed 37,000,000 tons of coal in 1925, whereas they only used 22,000,000 tons; and if, in view of this fact the Cabinet will reconsider their decision as to safeguarding the iron and steel industries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have taken note of the statement referred to. This and all other relevant considerations were in mind when the Government reached their decision as to safeguarding the iron and steel industries.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Was that, decision final?

The PRIME MINISTER: Final, certainly, for the present. There are very few questions of practical politics which are final. I answered a question on that point the other day.

Mr. REMER: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been called to the views expressed by prominent members of the Labour party on this subject?

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not a fact that on an average 10s. goes in royalties for every ton of steel made in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should think that statement is enormously exaggerated.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the statement made by a representative of the industry before the Coal Commission bearing out the statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not had notice of the question. I have told the hon. Member what I think, because I have had to earn a precarious living myself by making steel.

Mr. JONES: Is the Prime Minister aware that it takes four tons of coal on an average and two tons of iron—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech, speech !

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not ask a question like that without notice. He must put it on the Paper.

Mr. JONES: Is it not competent for an hon. Member to claim the privilege of replying to a statement that is not accurate?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member was making the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX APPEALS.

Colonel DAY: 55.
asked the Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the delay in the matter of appeals to the King's Bench Division in respect of Income Tax; and will he consider the advisability of a time limit being made in this regard?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): Under the existing law dissatisfaction has to be expressed immediately on the giving of a decision by the Commissioners if the unsuccessful party desires to have a case stated. The cases have to be stated by the Commissioners; but as a matter of convenience they are usually submitted by the Commissioners in draft to both parties before being finally settled. The cases to be stated vary so much in importance and complexity that I am satisfied a time limit for their signature by the Commissioners would not be practicable or in the interests either of the taxpayer or the Crown.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the learned Judge of the High Court stated that it was a scandal and perfectly shocking that a man should have to wait five years before these appeals were brought before the Court, and will he consider some method of hurrying them up?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member had followed the observations of the learned Judge a little more closely he would have seen that on a subsequent day he stated that he had been misreported.

Sir F. HALL: Does the Attorney-General really think the Judge had been misreported?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I know he had. It is perfectly true that the learned Judge commented on the long time that had elapsed between the appeal being started and heard by him, but he was misreported in saying that the Revenue authorities were in any way to blame.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Whether the learned Judge was misreported or not does not the Attorney-General agree that it is scandalous that a parry should be kept for four years on tenterhooks without knowing whether there is to be an appeal or not?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would be quite impossible to keep a man on tenterhooks for 24 hours. How long it takes after the commencement of an appeal and the time it is heard depends very largely on the time taken by the parties themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. ROBINSON: 60.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what area in the three Ridings of Yorkshire is under afforestation; what progress has been made during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1925; and what is the number of small holdings in association with schemes of afforestation in Yorkshire?

Major Sir H. BARNSTON (for the FORESTRY COMMISSION): The Forestry Commission have acquired 8,103 acres of plantable land in Yorkshire. Of this area they afforested 2,140 acres prior to 1925 and 932 acres during 1925. In association with the Commission's afforestation in Yorkshire there are four forest workers' holdings and an additional nine holdings are being established.

Mr. PALING: In view of the large acreage in Yorkshire suitable for afforestation, is it the intention of the Commissioners to press on with this work more rapidly than in the past?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I will convey that suggestion to my hon. Friend (Sir C. Forestier-Walker).

Oral Answers to Questions — BOGUS COMPANIES.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is
prepared to recommend that a commission be set up to investigate and submit a Report, making suggestions for suitable legislation dealing with the protection of small investors who are constantly being made the victims of financial loss in bogus companies, many of which are unregistered in this country?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that small investors throughout the country are subject to very considerable financial loss owing to the activities of brokers not affiliated to any recognised stock exchange, he will appoint a Committee to investigate the matter and to put forward concrete suggestions for legislation which will make such operations impossible?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I will answer these questions together. The matters referred to are already under consideration by the Departmental Committee now sitting.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: When is that Report likely to be received?

Mr. SAMUEL: I can speak only from memory, but I think the evidence has been taken, and the Committee are now considering their Report.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the meantime many people are losing money, which is going out of this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is so, but it is very difficult to protect innocent people against rogues.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUSE REMOVAL (LOCALAUTHORITIES).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 63.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities employ open dustcarts at the present time; and whether he will consider making the use of automatic closing dustcarts obligatory on local authorities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): On the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend regrets that he has not the information. On the second part, he has no authority to make
the use of such dustcarts obligatory, but local authorities are increasingly making use of improved vehicles.

Colonel APPLIN: Is this not a matter of great importance to the health of the community, and will my hon. Friend take steps to compel the local authorities to pass by-laws that their carts are to have airtight covers?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend has no such power. There is also the question of cost. Further, local authorities have power to deal with the matter.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH- COOKE: Will my hon. Friend make such arrangements as will compel the local authority responsible for Berkeley Square to remove the dust before nine o'clock in the morning?

Colonel DAY: Will the Minister seek the necessary powers?

Oral Answers to Questions — SECOND SCOTTISH NATIONAL HOUSING COMPANY.

Major KINDERSLEY: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total capital of the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, by whom the capital is subscribed, the names of the directors, the number of qualifying shares held by the directors, the remuneration of the directors, and whether he will lay upon the Table or place in the Library of the House a copy of the memorandum and articles of the company?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The total capital of the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, is £100,000. The capital is subscribed by the Scottish Board of Health. The business of the company is managed by an Executive Committee whose names are:

Sir John R. Findlay, Bart., K.B.E., LL.D., D.L., Edinburgh;

Sir Henry Ballantyne, D.L., Haddington;

Thomas Goodall Nasmyth, M.D., D.Sc., D.P.H., Edinburgh;

James Norval, Dunfermline;

David Ronald, M.Inst.C.E., F.R.S.E., Edinburgh;

Sir Daniel M. Stevenson, Bart., LL.D., D.E., Glasgow, and

John Alexander Inglis, King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, Edinburgh.

Each member of the Executive Committee holds one share. No remuneration is paid to the members of the Executive Committee. I shall be pleased to arrange for a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. HARDIE: Arc the land, and the houses built on it with the Government's money, shown as the property of the company or the property of the Government?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The company will be responsible for the purchase of the land and the management of it.

Mr. HARDIE: Who will be the owners? I know who is purchasing, but who will be the owners? Will it be the Government or the company?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The company will be the owners.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it a fact that the Government are handing over money in order to make a private company proprietors of Government land and of houses built with Government money? I want an answer.

Sir J.GILMOUR: the hon. Member knows, the Government are responsible for carrying out this housing scheme?

Mr. HARDIE: Who will be the owners when the scheme is carried out? The Government have paid the money. Who will be the owners? I press for an answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: An answer has already been given to the hon. Member.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know, is this a present given by the Government to this company of the land and the houses that are being built?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been put and has been answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HERRINGS (RUSSIA).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Over-
seas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to a statement issued by the Russian Trade Delegation to the effect that Russia is prepared to purchase Scotch herrings; and whether his Department is in communication with the Russian Trade Delegation to ascertain the amount that Russia is prepared to take in the forthcoming season?

Mr. SAMUEL: My attention has not been called to any such statement, nor has the Russian Trade Delegation communicated with my Department on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY (BOLDONCOLLIERY).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 68.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Boldon Colliery is still idle because the workmen refuse to commence a fourth-shift system; and whether he will take steps to urge upon the management to abandon their claim, seeing that this is against the custom prevailing in Durham County?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): As I stated, in. answer to a question by the hon. Member on 3rd March, my Department have made every possible effort to bring about a settlement of this matter. A representative of the Department, who spent some days in Durham in connection with this dispute, attended joint meetings of the parties, and in this and other ways tried to secure agreement. I regret that his efforts were not successful, and I am afraid that I can do no more.

Captain GEE: Is the question of an old custom of greater importance than providing work for unemployed miners?

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is it not a fact that places must stop where gas has been prevalent for some hours, so that the places can be cleared, and that where firedamp becomes prevalent the places must be stopped? Is the Minister aware that a large number of places have been reported by the local mines inspectors every time they went down because gas was prevalent in the mines?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, I am not aware that anything has been asked of the men which is absolutely illegal. On
the other point, the hon. Member has more knowledge than I have.

Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the points in dispute have been narrowed down to one, that the management want the men to work four shifts. Seeing that that is the dispute, will the Minister not make another effort to get the matter settled?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, I shall use every effort possible. At the moment I have done all that I can, but I certainly will not miss any opportunity of making a further effort.

Mr. WHITELEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to advise the Prime Minister to withdraw the whole of the subsidy from this firm in order to make them face this issue?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, Sir, for a very good reason. If that were done it would release the owners from the obligation to pay the recognised wages. The immediate effect would be to reduce the wages of men in that area by about 2s. 6d.

Mr. HARDIE: Is there such a demand for coal that it is not sufficient for men to work three shifts and that they must work four shifts?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (CONVICTED PERSONS).

Mr. SCURR: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of aliens from America who are well known to the police authorities in this country as having been convicted in America for fraudulent practices, have recently landed in this country; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with them under the provisions of the Aliens Act?

Captain HACKING: I presume the hon. Member's question relates to individuals whose activities have recently been the subject of comment in the Press. The matter is under consideration, but it would not be desirable for me to make any statement at the present stage.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot some of the machinery that is used to keep out political refugees be used to keep out these fraudulent rogues?

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (COST).

Mr. SCURR: 71.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the reason for the increase of the rate levied by the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis; and whether, when estimating the amount required for the coming year, the Commissioner took into consideration the increased assessable value of London due to the quinquennial valuation?

Captain HACKING: The estimated expenditure on police services for next year shows an increase attributable in the main to automatic increases in incremental salaries and pensions, to the abolition of the rent cut and to certain increases of effective strength. This has necessitated an increase in the rate for the Metropolis after allowing for the effect of revaluation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL SERVICE (MEDICAL OFFICERS).

Mr. FORREST: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of the differences between his Department and the British Medical Association with regard to the conditions of employment of medical officers in the Colonial service, and more especially in East Africa?

Mr. AMERY: I received a deputation from the British Medical Association on 5th March. Correspondence with the Association is still proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (WOOLLEN GOODS).

Colonel GRETTON: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the Government of the Irish Free State proposes to impose a duty upon all woollen piece goods imported into the Free State; if he has considered the effect of such a tax upon woollen manufactures in the United Kingdom and upon Northern Ireland; and if any communications have taken place or any representations been made to the Government of the Irish Free State with a view to obtaining preference for British goods?

Mr. AMERY: I have no information as to the intentions of the Free State Government in this matter, and the second
part of the question does not therefore arise. The reply to the third part is in the negative, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that a preference is already granted on certain classes of British goods imported into the Free State.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the outward movement of British subjects to British North America was less last year than in 1924, and that there was also a decrease in the outward movement of British subjects-to Australia; and whether, in view of the powers given under the Empire Settlement Act, he can explain the falling off in Empire migration?

Mr. AMERY: This falling off has been the subject of very careful inquiry by the Committee presided over by Sir Donald MacLean, and I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the Report of that Committee, which is available for Members to-day.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fault lies overseas or on this side?

Mr. AMERY: That is a very wide question. I would ask my hon. Friend to read the Report, which is now available.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS

RETURN OF SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD (by Private Notice): May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about what happened at Geneva this morning?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I have no information myself about what happened this morning beyond what has been made public.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I further ask, in view of the necessity for a Debate on this subject without delay, whether it would be convenient for the Government to have a Debate arranged for the beginning of next week; or what would be the earliest date on which it would be possible for us to discuss the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I should doubt very much the possibility of having a statement from him before Wednesday, but I am quite sure he will be as desirous as any hon. Members in this House to make that statement at the earliest convenient time.

Mr. MacDONALD: May we take it, provisionally, that it will be Wednesday, as arrangements may have to be made for other things?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may we take it that the Foreign Secretary will return immediately to England? In that case, I hope it will be possible to have a Debate before Wednesday. I understand that there is a Vote on Account to be taken on Monday.

The PRIME MINISTER: I was not expecting these questions, and I have no knowledge as to when the Foreign Secretary will be returning. I think it only fair to remember that he has had an extremely difficult and searching time, and I am sure if it be possible for him to he back say, on Sunday, the House would feel it not unreasonable that he should have a day or two to rest before what would be undoubtedly a difficult and trying occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

PROCEDURE BY BILL OF ATTAINDER.

Major EDMONDSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, my hon. Friend (Mr. Tinne) will call attention to the simplicity and suitability of procedure by Bill of Attainder in certain cases, and move a Resolution.

FRANCHISE.

Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of equal franchise as between men and women, and move a Resolution.

POSITION OF EXECUTIVE.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the position of the Executive, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business he exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 116.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derby)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Apsloy, Lord
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Astor, Viscountess
Campbell, E. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cautley, Sir Henry S,
Eden, Captain Anthony


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A, J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Barnett Major Sir Richard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
England, Colonel A.


Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Bennett, A. J.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bethel, A.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Everard, W, Lindsay


Betterton, Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Blades. Sir George Rowland
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Blundell, F. N.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Fielden, E. B.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Finburgh, S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Forrest, W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cope, Major William
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Brass, Captain W.
Couper, J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Briggs, J. Harold
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Briscoe, Richard George
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gates, Percy


Brittain, Sir Harry
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Gee, Captain R.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Bt. Hon. Sir John
Maclntyre, Ian
Savery, S. S.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McLean, Major A.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Goff, Sir Park
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Greene, W. P, Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Skelton, A. N.


Gretton, Colonel John
Malone, Major P. B.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Manningham- Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Smithers, Waldron


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hall, Capt, W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kensington)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Murchison, C. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D, G. C. (Cambridge)
Templeton, W. P.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G,
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & wh'by)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Oakley, T.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Connor. Thomas P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopklnson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Perring, Sir William George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Water house, Captain Charles


Huntingfield, Lord
Philipson, Mabel
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pielou, D. P.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hutchison. G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Pilcher, G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Iliffe Sir Edward M.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wells, S. R.


Jacob, A. E.
Preston, William
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Raine, W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Remer, J. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lamb, J. Q.
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Salmon, Major I.



Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Famham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Loder, J. de V.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Barnston.


Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon Joseph M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Kenyon, Barnet


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gillett, George M.
Lansbury, George


Barnes, A.
Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Greenall, T.
Lee, F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Briant, Frank
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Bromfield, William
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Buchanan, G.
Hardle, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cape, Thomas
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Palin, John Henry


Clowes, S.
Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Connolly, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cove, W. G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Riley, Ben


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dennison, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Duckworth. John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James




Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Short, Alfred (Wednesoury)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Whiteley, W.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Wiggins, William Martin


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Thurtle, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sitch, Charles H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Townend, A. E.
Windsor, Walter


Snell, Harry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wright, W


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Viant, S. P.



Stamford, T. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Taylor, R. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

LICENSING ACT (1921) AMENDMENT.

Mr. BANKS: beg to move,
 That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1921.
The principal object of the Bill is to alter those provisions of the Licensing Act, 1921, which regulate the hours for the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor. The most important of those provisions permits intoxicating liquor to be sold or supplied over a total period of eight hours, from 11 o'clock in the morning until 10 o'clock at night, with a break of at least two hours in the afternoon, and in the Metropolis the total period is nine hours, terminating not later than 11 o'clock at night. Those are called the permitted hours of sale, and by the Act they were to be distributed, pending the issue of Orders, in each licensing district, by licensing justices as follows: In London, from 11.30 in the morning to three in the afternoon, and from 5.30 to 11 in the evening; elsewhere, from 11.30 in the morning to three in the afternoon, and in the evening from 5.30 to 10 o'clock.
I refrain from dealing with the Sunday hours on account of the shortness of time at my disposal, but it will be noted that the licensing justices within these prescribed limits were to distribute the hours for public-houses as they thought best. This power they exercise, as everybody knows, at their general annual meeting after having given public notice of their intention to discuss the subject, and after taking such steps as they think best to ascertain local opinion. On the other hand, it will be recollected that clubs have power to distribute the hours as they think best in accordance with the direction of their Rules. The present Bill proposes to substitute far weekdays a statutory scale of hours of sale as follows: As respects licensed premises and clubs in the Metropolis, from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., with a break of at least two hours in the afternoon; in cities, county
boroughs, towns, and populous places, which are defined roughly in accordance with the principles of the old Act, from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m., with the same break; and elsewhere, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., with the same compulsorily break. There are also provisions in the Bill for Sunday hours, which I need not go into, except to say that the provisions do not extend the total period, but fix the Sunday evening hours as from seven to 10.
Some very deplorable consequences have arisen from the provisions of the Licensing Act, 1921. The first, which is particularly noticeable in the Metropolis, is the lack of uniformity of hours between the various licensing divisions. It is not necessary to multiply instances. One example will suffice. On the North side of Oxford Street all public-houses are closed at 10 p.m., while on the South side they are open till 11 p.m., with the result that every night there is a nocturnal migration from the Sahara of St. Marylebone to the Oasis of St. George's, Hanover Square. While on the North sick of the street all is dark and dry at 11 o'clock—

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear !

Mr. BANKS: I am obliged to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) for her cheers, because she will realise how absurd it is—that on the other side of the street the houses are congested to overflowing, which is uncomfortable to the customers, dangerous for the publican, and difficult for the police. Of course, if the Noble Lady will allow me to say so, to the foreign visitor, especially from America, it is a, typical example of British hypocrisy and imbecility. Meanwhile—and I am sure this will appeal very forcibly to the Noble Lady — the strenuous consumer of alcohol under the present system positively gets his period of activities extended, because he can begin early on one side of the street, and
finish late on the other. Really, I believe there is on the question of the desirability of uniform hours, with reasonable exceptions in the case of bonâfide restaurants, a general concensus of opinion. The controversy really rages round the question whether the final hour shall he 11 p.m. or 10 p.m.
It will be noticed that in this Bill there is no proposal to revert to the pre-War hours. I am informed that the licensed victuallers themselves are not desirous of doing so, though the House will not forget that they are continuing to pay the same duties with curtailed opportunities of trading. But I am strongly of opinion that the public at large consider that in great cities like London they should have facilities for obtaining intoxicating liquors till at least 11 o'clock in the evening. I do submit that it is a reasonable proposition that licensing hours should be fixed not merely to please those who never use licensed premises any more than we would open picture galleries to please the blind, or have concerts arranged at hours convenient to the deaf, but in the main, those who do use licensed premises. In the absence of any definite proof of disorder or intemperance, the public at large have the right to be consulted, and the thwarting of such a reasonable demand only results in the circumstances which we see and deplore at the present time, namely, in the constant evasion of the law and in the multiplication of undesirable night clubs.
The worst feature of the present system seems to be this. Parliament in 1921—a period when many unusual compromises were effected—evaded its responsibilities and placed upon the licensing magistrates a duty which in my opinion it was not fair to place upon them and which they cannot discharge satisfactorily. I would like to say that I believe with all my heart that the magistrates of this country are the most incorruptible magistrates in the world, and I have perfect confidence in their judgment whenever they are exercising that judgment upon a judicial question. But this is not an absolutely judicial question. It is largely a moral question; with some persons, it is almost a religious question, and I venture to say that in these circumstances prejudice is ingrained and unavoidable. I have had consider-
able experience of practicing in Licensing Courts, and, believe me, there is a certain type of countenance which I can recognise at a glance. It is usually accompanied by white whiskers and a black bow tie and indicates a mind impermeable to any argument on this particular topic.
With regard to the proceedings, those who have had experience of them, I think, will agree that they are useless and most undignified. To say that public opinion is really consulted or represented at these hearings is ludicrous to anybody who has had any practical experience. Busy people, it is obvious, during the hours w hen these functions take place, between 10.30 and mid-day, are engaged in attending to their own business, and the Court is filled with people who can afford to attend and who interest themselves interfering with the business of their neighbors, which they usually describe as social work. I do not know why it is that the Court always seems to be filled with characters from the pages of Charles Dickens. On the one hand you have the Rev. Melchisedech Howler, accompanied by acidulated and dyspeptic females—frumps of both sexes—and, on the other hand, you either have an advocate pleading according to his instructions, or else you have occasionally some volunteer, whose appearance generally suggests that he makes the fullest use of the hours at present at his disposal. But normal humanity is about its business and is unrepresented and is not heard upon these occasions.
To the system of local option, I cherish grave and, I believe, well-founded objections, but I will concede this point: It does give every individual citizen the chance of recording his opinion. Of course, in frequent cases it is stultified by the opinion of other persons who have made up their minds to down him at all costs, but still he gets his chance of recording his opinion. The provision of statutory hours has this recommendation. It records the opinion of Parliament and pressure can be applied to Parliament by the constituencies in various ways, end it extinguishes this useless and undignified controversy. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce this Bill, because, whether its details are acceptable or not, at any late it abolishes the present indefensible
system, which is anomalous, undignified and exasperating.

Viscountess ASTOR: We have heard, as usual, a very amusing and witty, but I do not think an altogether convincing, speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He talks about the justice of the licensing magistrates. They are just in everything except when it comes to the question of drink. I think the country can go on trusting them even there. We all know there is not the slightest chance of this House altering the hours of drink now, because the interest for which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just spoken has ever since 1921 been pressing to extend the hours of drink with failure throughout the country. Throughout the country they have never got on with it, because the conscience of the country is against it. When he talks about local action, I only wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman would carry his democracy that far, and give the people a chance of expressing their will on the subject of drink. It is the only thing on which they have not been allowed to do so, because the fact of asking people what they think about drink at once calls up again what he calls an organisation, an organisation more powerful than perhaps any single political organisation in the country to-day—the drink trade. I do not know that it operates in only one party. It operates in all, and Members who are interested in temperance realise that we who are fighting for reform always come up against what we hive heard to-day. What did he call them? Long-faced fanatics meddling with other people's business. I would like to remind the House that if it had not been for the long-faced fanatics there would have been no moral reforms ever got in the world. The very people you are making fun of are the people who have braved public opinion and have stood up for moral reforms. I do hope the House will realise that it is not the country which is pressing for this Bill, but the drink trade. It is always bringing its pressure to hear under the guise of democracy, and I trust very much that the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that some of us who are fighting for temperance reform are not fanatics and are not morally obsessed—

Mr. BANKS: I did not say "fanatics," I said "frumps." I can say this to the Noble Lady. She is one of the few I know who unite a charming personality to a frumpish psychology.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am not in the least ashamed of my frumpish psychology. What you call "frumpish psychology" is steadily grading down, not only in this country but throughout the British Empire, and some day the House will realise that "frumpish psychology" is really the thing which has made England and the thing which, I am quite certain, the hon. and learned Member thinks very little of, but which we like to call the puritanical reforms which the Anglo-Saxon nations have always fought for and are still fighting for. We who fight for moral and spiritual aims are always laughed at as being frumpish, and so on. We do not mind. I do beg to remind the Members of my own party that within the party we have a very grave danger. We have got a powerful trade always trying to put us off the track. They tell you that if you once touch the drink trade you are ruining the freedom of the citizens of this country. Do remember that whenever you go into the question of drink you always come up against the hidden hand which they say is operating at Geneva. It is always operating in politics in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I know, represents the trade.

Mr. HARDIE: Which supports your party.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is just as active in your party.

Mr. SPEAKER: Interruptions are not fair when an hon. Member is addressing the House under the 10 minutes Rule.

Viscountess ASTOR: I did not know this Bill was coming on, and I did not prepare for it. I look upon the drink trade as a menace to all parties and a menace to the country. With due respect to hon. Members opposite, if they fought it in their party in the way I have fought it in mine, we would soon get rid of it. I do hope the House will realise that it is not the desire of the country to have extended hours or uniform hours. They are being properly dealt with in the hands of the licensing justices. In different parts of London they have different habits
and different tastes, and it is no good comparing one district with another. We can only rejoice that there are districts which go to bed early. I hope hon. Members on this side will realise that this Bill has nothing to do with the will of the country. It is solely the desire of that highly organised, undemocratic and

dangerous body which calls itself "the trade," and which is always against all moral, religious and spiritual reform.

Question put, "That, leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1921."

The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 115.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[4.15 p.m.


Acland- Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Pielou, D. P.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fermoy, Lord
Preston, William


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Fielden, E. B.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fisnburgh, S.
Raine, W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Ramsden, E.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gates, Percy
Remer, J. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Remnant, Sir James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Rice, Sir Frederick


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gower, Sir Robert
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Bethel, A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Grotrian, H. Brent
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain G, E. W.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brass, Captain W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Brittain, sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Shaw, Capt. W, W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herberts.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks,Newb'y)
Hirst, G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Bullock, Captain M.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Huntingfield, Lord
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Campbell, E. T.
Hutchison, G. A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kennedy, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Chilcott, Sir Warden
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Titchfield, Major the Marguess of


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lamb, J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Varley, Frank B.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lumley, L. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.


Connolly, M.
Macintyre, Ian
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Cooper, A. Duff
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Dr T.


Cope, Major William
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wells. S. R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor, Walter


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Dalton, Hugh
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Woodcock. Colonel H. C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Day, Colonel Harry
Nicholson, Cot. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)



Dennison, R.
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Eden, Captain Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Mr. Macguisten and Colonel Gretton.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Perring, Sir William George



NOES.


Adamscn, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Briant, Frank
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbre')
Briggs, J. Harold
Buchanan. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, F. A.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Barnes, A.
Bromfield, William
Cape, Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Charleton, H. C.


Clowes, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Spencer, G. A. (Broxfowe)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Livingstone, A. M.
Taylor, R. A.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Forrest, W.
Lunn, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gee, Captain R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thurtle, E.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Oliver, George Harold
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hall. G. H, (Merthyr Tydvll)
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J, (Jarrow)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben
Wise, Sir Fredric


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rose, Frank H.
Wright, W.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hume, Sir G. H.
Sexton, James
Viscountess Astor and Sir John Simon.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Resolutions agreed to.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the names of the Tellers you gave out in favour of the Bill were the hon. Member for Berwick (Mrs. Philipson) and the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), and those two Tellers were not acting on behalf of the Ayes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am the Member for Argyllshire, and I acted.

Mr. SPEAKER: One of the Tellers first named was unwilling to act, and when I was so informed I named another Teller, who volunteered for that purpose.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Banks, Mr. Greaves-Lord, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett, Major Sir Richard Barnett, Sir Philip Dawson, Mr. Clarry, Mr. Berner, Colonel Grant Morden and Mr. Meller.

LICENSING ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,
 to amend the Licensing Act, 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th May, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.

Indian Affairs,—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution: "That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider, with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon, any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Heather Burning (Scotland) Bill: The Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Captain. Bourne, Major Crawfurd, Major George Davies, Lord Fermoy, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. Harmsworth, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. March, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Robinson, Major Steel, Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. Charles Williams.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
1. "That, in the case of the Kidderminster and Stourport Tramways [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition that the powers to construct Tramways No. 1 and No. 1A be struck out of the Bill, unless the requisite consents of local and road authorities be proved before the Committee on the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with.
2. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties he permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit.
3. "That, in the case of the Messrs. Hoare Trustees [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [16th, March], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was: To leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."—[Mr. Snowden.]

Question again proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Captain CAZALET: It is with great diffidence that I rise to offer a few observations on the Bill that is before the House to-day. Just as a hungry man welcomes any crumb that falls to his lot, without being too particular or inquisitive as to its quality, so I think this House and this country will welcome the crumbs of economy which are offered in this Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not suppose anyone will imagine that it is more than a halfway milestone on the road to economy along which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is leading us, and perhaps the most depressing feature of it is that the measure of relief it affords is a declining factor. This year it is, possibly, £10,000,000, declining next year to an all too probable £7,000,000. Perhaps the details in regard to Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance are rather too complicated for a pure amateur to criticise, and. if I may say so, I think the leaflet which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to send round with the Bill was even more difficult to understand than the Bill itself. I believe, however, that there is a suspicion on the part of those who are cognisant of the facts of the case that, with the reduced contribution on the part-of the Government, it is quite possible that the extended and improved maternity benefits will not be paid. We should like to have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not the case.
The other question which, I think, these two first items of the Bill raise is this: In it the House is being asked to dictate
to two great insurance companies along these lines: up till now the State has contributed in a certain proportion. Now the House is asked to say that the contributions of the State should be less than they have been in the past. This opens up the whole question of the attitude of Parliament, and especially the Executive, towards the Government Departments. In my humble opinion in the past the whole attitude of Parliament and of the Cabinet towards Government Departments has been, I will not say wrong, but it has not been so forcible as it should be. We in this House are so disciplined that when any Estimates are presented which show no decrease we are so relieved that we positively offer no comment at all. If the Estimates submitted show a definite reduction we are overcome with gratitude and jubilation. Surely, however, the attitude of the Executive Department towards expenditure by the Government Departments should be that of the head of the family distributing the amount of the budget to the various members of the family. I do think that the excuse which is always made that it is due to the War cannot prevail to-day nearly eight-years after the War. If the Departments have not been able to put their house in order during eight years they ought to have done so. I feel that if this House had had proper control of the expenditure of the Government Departments they would never have indulged these extravagances for the curtailment of which they are demanding gratitude on the part of the overtaxed people of this country ! When I read of the economies which they have produced here, to my mind, it only demonstrates the gross extravagances which have been going on in the various Departments ever since the War.
My suggestion is that, when the Estimates are presented in the ordinary course, they should not be considered unless they are at least 5 per cent. less than those same Estimates that have been presented the previous year. We heard yesterday from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we can only economise on £165,000,000. If that is the case, I think it is one of the most depressing statements that have been made on behalf of the Government. I should like the House to take up a very definite point of view, and quickly to say that no
Estimate will be considered unless it shows a reduction of 5 per cent. this year. Though I admit that certain Departments may find it difficult to fulfil that stipulation. In that case, if certain Departments are able to justify every penny of their expenditure, it should be added to the economies being effected in another Department. I cannot believe that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would be unable to find means in his power to compel the Departments to put this suggestion into effect.
There is one other matter on which I want to make one or two observations. It is a, small matter, I admit, a trivial one perhaps, but one in which I think this House will and can contribute towards economy, namely, the matter of answers to questions. No one wishes to curtail the liberty of Members of this House to ask any questions or demand any information they may require. It is not the questions which give discomfort to the Government that cost the money. The questions to which I refer are those to which the answer given is usually a long one, as for instance:
As the answer to this question is a long one, and contains a number of figures, with my hon. Friend's permission I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Or, it may be on these lines:
I am having a statement prepared on the subject.
In the last three weeks there have been no less than five questions of this kind. I admit that not one of the offenders comes from the party opposite. These questions have, in my opinion, entailed unnecessary expense on the various Departments who have to answer them. The answer to one of these questions took up 14 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Three other questions have not yet been answered, because it was necessary in order to prepare the answers to get Treasury sanction for the expenditure of a certain sum of money. I understand, to my surprise, that this Treasury sanction has been given, and the answers will shortly be forthcoming. The last question has not yet been answered. It will not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT and for the very good reason that the printing authorities of the House have demurred to publish it in full. It would almost entail a special number of the
OFFICIAL REPORT if it were to be printed in full.
It is estimated that the answer to this question, without taking into account the typing or the printing, will be anywhere between £6 and £10. The question is, whose duty is it to curtail or discourage questions of this kind? An hon. Member when he asks a question is not aware of the considerable expense to which it may put a Department. Equally so, the Clerk at the Table has no idea of the expenditure that may be entailed. But I do say that some authority should be given to the heads of the various Government Departments when a question of the kind to which I have referred comes along to bring it to the notice of the Minister in question, and to suggest to him that he should see the Member concerned, or write to him, and try to discover whether or not the Member will be satisfied with an answer somewhat shorter than those which I have enumerated.
There is also a habit growing up of hon. Members asking questions of the various Departments the answers to which are already to be found in the various Government publications. There are various Departments whose duty it is to collect and compile certain statistical information and publications. I maintain that it is not the duty of these officials to copy out a long column of figures and statistics when a Member can go and find it for himself if he will only take the trouble to look up the right book. I suggest that the Department should be allowed to answer some of these questions by merely referring the Member to a certain page in a certain volume.
There is another habit which I understand is on the increase to-day, and that is this: the Customs and Revenue Department do answer questions from civilians for the encouragement of employment and trade. What happens, so I am informed, is this: that a certain individual writes to the Customs and Excise and asks for certain information, let us say, regarding cretonne imports between Czechoslovakia and some other State. The reply of the Customs is that they will be delighted to furnish the inquirer with the information required, which will cost him anything from 5s. to 30s., or whatever the cost may be. The individual who receives a letter of that sort is so staggered at being asked to pay
for some information he requires from a Government Department that he immediately begins to consider some way of getting round the situation. The way he does it is this: he writes to his worthy Member one of those letters with which all of us are familiar referring to his support, it may be, at the last election, and winding up "I wish you would find out the following facts for me, as it concerns my business considerably." Then he writes the question down for the benefit of the Member. Innocently, the Member comes to this House, writes out the question, puts it, and the overtaxed people of this country once more foot the bill. I admit that this is a small matter, but surely it is in the small matters like this that everyone should be willing to accept a suggestion. I have brought this forward because I am sure that the House would co-operate willingly in making such economies as can be effected in a matter of this kind.
The last observation that I would make is this: I believe that economy can only be effected if the people of this country as a whole demand it. Do they? My own opinion is that the country is behind the Government and the Executive in demanding economy to-day. I agree with what the hon. Member for South Hackney (Capt. Garro-Jones) said yesterday as to opportunities being given to the people to assist in the reduction of the National Debt by voluntary contributions, as is being done in Italy to-day. The whole of the first year's instalment of the Italian debt to the United States was made up of voluntary contributions. As we heard yesterday, you cannot reduce the interest on our National Debt, but you can limit the dividends of private companies to-day without, perhaps, doing very much injustice to the various parties, and you can give further opportunities to various members of the public to contribute voluntarily in the same manner as in Italy.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I shall be delighted to receive any contributions.

Captain CAZALET: My right hon. Friend says he will be only too delighted to receive any contributions. I wish him to give further opportunities to the public to indulge him in this matter. I should like to see £1 and £5 bonds and
upwards on sale in every bank and in every post office throughout the country. There is, too, a very large proportion of American visitors who come to this country in the summer, and I imagine are ashamed of the yearly tribute which their country exacts from this country for taking part in a common business. I think they would contribute generously to such a scheme, for just as the Government of America is extremely parsimonious so they are extremely generous, and I believe they would avail themselves of the opportunity the authorities might give them.
We must also bear in mind at the present time that there are large numbers of working people who are suffering, and who are being asked to take less wages. These requests are being made to them on the ground of economy. Yet at the same time they see every day in the newspapers dividends of increasing amount in many cases being paid. I am willing to admit that there are many cases in which there is no dividend paid at all, but somehow one does not often see them. It may he that probably one's own money is invested in them, and the reading of the account is unpleasant, but the dividends one does see are usually fully up to last year's amount, if not an increase on it At the same time I think I saw the day before yesterday in one of the public journals three columns devoted to discussing what was called the "brilliant season" which was about to descend upon us. Now, a brilliant season, if it means anything, means that money is to be lavished about to a greater degree than ever before. Far be it from me to discourage any foreign or American visitor to this country spending his money here.
But if it is to entail also a flaunting of expenditure and wasteful extravagance, then, I think, it probably does more harm than good. Unless the more fortunate members of the community set an example, you cannot expect others to accept meekly a reduction in their wages. Some months ago I ventured, with much timidity, to make a suggestion that the present Cabinet Ministers should copy their predecessors of 100 years ago and set an example to the country by voluntarily reducing their salaries by, let us say, 5 per cent. I have no doubt that many of them have done this. I am perfectly certain that if they did so their example would be rapidly followed by
many Members of Parliament, and by many of the more highly-paid officials in all parts of the country, in industry as well as in Government offices. I believe that example would be widely followed, and that the country, if once given a lead, would demonstrate that it was behind Parliament and the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in demanding both drastic and immediate economies.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down has made some very interesting suggestions to the Treasury bench, and I hope Ministers will give them due consideration and weight, and that before the Debate is over we may hear from one of the Ministers what their view is upon these reductions of salaries and other methods of arriving at a solution of the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The least hopeful suggestion I thought was that we should open a subscription list among American tourists. I am not one of those who admire the settlement of the American debt, but I do not see a very hopeful way out of that burden in the direction so enthusiastically suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend with all the hopefulness of youth. He has a confidence in human nature which I hope he will retain at least up to my years. During the last two or three months the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been giving us his Budget by instalments—to be continued in the next. Some of these instalments were given to mass meetings in the country. I think we in the House of Commons ought to be grateful that, at last, he has given us one of these instalment. His speech would have been very interesting if it had had anything to do with the Bill before the House. There were two things which the Chancellor did not explain, one being the Measure we were discussing, and the other how it comes that the promise of economy he made in his Budget of last year has not been realised, and how it is that he does not even hope, so far as I can see, to achieve that realisation. The words he used then were very, very careful words. He weighed his words very carefully. He used language which showed that he, really meant it. He said:
 I believe that we ought to aim at a net reduction in the Supply expenditure
of not less than £10,000,000 a year. That is not taking an extravagant figure. It would be easy for me to get a more favourable response by giving a more illusory figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1925; cols. 59 and 60, Vol. 183.]
The Chancellor of the Echequer can be very entertaining, and he is a great actor, but he is never more amusing than when he gives himself the airs of a very careful person who likes to err on the side of caution. On this occasion the impression given was "Of course, I am going to get more than £10,000,000, but I am the sort of person who likes to understate my expectations. It will be £20,000,000 or more, but I will say £10,000,000, and that I will stick to." Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) asked a question—when the Chancellor was talking about saving £10,000,000 a year:
Mr. SNOWDEN: Each year?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Each year, progressively, on Supply services. There should certainly be a saving of £5,000,000 on the debt operations of each year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1925; col. 60, Vol. 183.]
and he explained that from all those sources,
if we were able to achieve that position.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If.!

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Do not be in a hurry. My right hon. Friend is like me. he has made so many speeches that he cannot remember everything—and he has had to change them very often. This speech was made only a year ago, let me remind him, and therefore I am entitled to quote him:
From all those sources, if we were able to achieve that position—there is no reason at all why a strong and resolute effort should not achieve it. "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1925; col. 60, Vol. 183.]
£10,000,000 was to be saved by a strong and resolute effort. It is £10,000,000 the other way. That is the result of the strong and resolute effort, and we have had no explanation at all of the reason why.
He has been beaten by the Admirals—completely. That is why he is attacking Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance and the schools. He was beaten by the Admirals—beaten by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord has a great
advantage in all these controversies, because he is the sort of man you feel you ought not to take advantage of. It is like taking toffee from a child! The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says to himself, "I must not be too hard on him"; but he has been beaten by the wily Salopian, and the result is he is under the impression at this moment that his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty has reduced the Estimate this year. He said so yesterday. He said yesterday: "Here is the sort of colleague I like. Not only has he reduced the Estimate, but he has reduced it whilst increasing the expenditure. He is actually adding cruisers to the Navy at less expense."
My right hon. Friend is the last man who aught to be taken in by that old dodge, because he practised it on me himself. He knows exactly what it is. The Admiralty, when presenting an estimate for huge construction—for Dreadnoughts and cruisers—compromise by saying, "We will only ask for £3,000,000 this year." They lay the keels—very late in the year. But we are committed, and next year it will be £9,000,000, and the following year it will be £11,000,000, and the year after that £12,000,000 or £13,000,000. And my right hon. Friend thinks he has succeeded in getting a reduction in the Admiralty Estimates! On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has secured a programme which will involve a substantial increase in Navy Estimates. I listened with admiration to the speech he made here last week. He said: "As to this £2,000,000 I am saving, I must be open with the House. There is about £150,000 of it which is only postponed expenditure." And we all said, "Look at his honesty in telling us; he need not have done it!" The whole time there was £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 of postponed expenditure in these additional new cruisers.

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, here are the figures. I will give the actual figures. This year it is £3,700,000, next year it will be £8,596,000, the following year £11,997,000, and the year after £12,896,000. That is for a programme of which we are getting only the beginnings this year, and with the expenditure pushed off till the end of the year, so
that it should not fall on the present year's Vote.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the right hon. Gentleman has studied the new construction Vote and forecast as a whole, he will know that the battleship construction has been practically completed and will reduce the Vote in the future.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, but that is no reason why we should spend all this money on cruisers which are not needed at all. [HON. MEMBERS "No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are going to have all this increased expenditure, although he fought it—although he fought and resisted it at, the time, and it was made absolutely clear that both he and the Prime Minister were opposed to it. Yet here we are committed to it at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman is up £10,000,000 when he promised to be down £10,000,000; and therefore he is going to attack health insurance and unemployment insurance and the schools.
He is making a desperate effort to pick up another 6d. He has ¾d. from Italy. He is looking out for 1d. or 2d. from France; but the French have discovered a most ingenious new method of avoiding paying their debts, by changing their cashiers whenever the bill is presented. I do not see any prospect of his getting his 6d. there. He is going to raid the Road Fund; he is going to he a highwayman and take away some of the funds allocated for the improvement of the roads and the making of new roads. I think he has chosen the epithets for it rather well. He is a master of words, and he chose a description of the whole of these economies for us when he called them "mean." He is getting £350 from Orkney and Shetland by cutting down the days of polling. Mounted on this Shetland pony, he is going to prance around and raid schools and cottages and the roads, and is going to get £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. Let us look at his proposals. He talked yesterday about the automatic growth of pensions. As a matter of fact, there will be no growth after this year for some years to come. This is the peal year of the pensions—I am taking his own figures, published last year—and afterwards the curve will go sloping downwards for two, three or four years. No doubt afterwards the amount will
grow; but it will not trouble him for two, three or four years, and he knows that, and he is depending upon that in his Estimate.
5.0 P.M.
Now he is going to take £1,000,000 from the Army and the Navy. That has not been referred to in this Debate. I was actually and primarily responsible for the proposal to give the same benefits to the soldiers and sailors as you gave to the rest of the community, having regard to the fact that during the years of their service there would be no charge upon them in respect of medical benefit or maintenance, because they would go on receiving their pay. Therefore you only charged three-half-pence for the soldiers and sailors. That was a fund upon which they could draw when they retired from the Army or the Navy. They have had to pay three-half-pence, and that has been deducted during the whole of these years from their pay. The fund to which they contributed has accumulated, and now they have had the same luck with that fund, we are told that it is due to the increased interest. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the increased interest also means an increase in the cost of living, and therefore a reduction in the value of the benefit which is deprived.
What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He says to them: "You have accumulated too much money." What he ought to do, first of all, is to say to them what was said by him and myself in 1911: "If the fund prospers, if the actuaries have been too cautious, if the fund is well administered, we will either increase your benefits or reduce your contributions." We promised the alternative, but the moment it reaches this figure, what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? When it reaches the figure at which they are entitled to the benefit that was promised to them, he takes £1,000,000 of it away, not to make up a deficit because he is not confronted with that, but in order to build up a fund that will enable him to reduce taxation. That is not a fair thing for people who have been paying contributions all these years.
Now I come to another point, that is the raid of about £3,000,000 on that Fund. What happened? In 1911, that scheme was criticised, and criticised largely by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and
the party to which they belong. They said, "You are giving too low benefits for what you are charging and you ought to give more or charge less." We said, "There are two difficulties. The first was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) yesterday, that when you bring a whole population in who have not been contributing at 16 and give them a flat rate of benefit, then at the beginning you are not getting the full advantage of your contribution."The second answer we gave them was," We have no doubt at all that as a, result of a great system of health insurance with improving medical benefits, with the removal of the anxieties that oppress a sick workman when ill, and not able to maintain his household, there will be such an improvement in the health of the people that the benefits will be increased."
All that has turned out to be quite true. What has happened? Many of the approved societies had to be consulted as well as the trade unions, the friendly societies, and the collecting societies, and they had their criticisms to make. Ultimately we made a definite arrangement and bargain with them to accept the terms offered by the Government then. This was referred to by the Minister of Health as a bargain in the reply he gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and it was part of his objection to accepting a reduction of contributions last year because it would interfere with an arrangement made with the approved societies. What happened? That arrangement was submitted to a Cabinet of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member. We said to them, "If it turns out that by efficient administration you will have accumulated funds. and if we have overestimated the risk, we can put in powers that will enable you to increase the benefits." That was the bargain to which my right hon. Friend was a direct party, because he was a Member of the Government that made the bargain, and it was submitted to the House of Commons. An hon. Member opposite has stated that it was only the Liberals that made that bargain, but as a matter of fact it was made by the House of Commons as a whole, and therefore it was made by the nation. As far as I
can recollect, that part of the Measure was not opposed by hon. Members opposite.
That was the bargain, and now we are going back upon it. See what it means. You are now paying 15s. instead of 10s. in health insurance. What does it mean? With the cost of living at 170, that is equivalent to 8s. 7d., so that you are really paying less than you paid when the Bill was first introduced. Take the case of unemployment. To a man with a wife and three children, 29s. a week is paid out of the Unemployment Fund, and anybody knows that even with that payment it is a pretty bleak outlook for such a family in the towns where rents are very high. We have had a Royal Commission on this question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not thought it even worth while to let the Report of that Commission be examined by the approved societies. The Report is a very expensive document, and it costs 6s. 6d. It is a document which affects 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 people in this country, and its recommendations affect their daily lives. They affect their prospects in the days of trial, and they ought to have an opportunity of seeing what those recommendations mean.
What did the Royal Commission recommend? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer never referred to this subject yesterday, and yet it is very germane to the consideration of this Bill, The Royal Commission examined the whole problem of health insurance, and I have every reason to be gratified with the Report they made upon the result of health insurance, and upon its success. That, however, is not what I am coming to. What did they recommend? They said, "We cannot recommend additional benefits at the expense of the State, having regard to the heavy expenditure that is falling upon the taxpayers," and the majority turned down every proposal that would involve additional burdens upon taxpayers. But they said, "We have accumulated money by means of these funds and the contributions which arc now being made; you can grant additional medical benefits and additional benefits in the case of sickness to the contributors. You can give 2s. in respect of every member of the household," and they recommended accordingly. A sick man with a wife and three children would
have the sum of 23s., which is 6s. less than an unemployed man in full health would get.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with this facing him, and with the pledge which he himself was a party to, now takes away the prospect which has been dangled before these people for years, towards which they have contributed, at the very moment of realisation, and what for? In order to save about a halfpenny in the £ upon the Income Tax, or an amount of £2,800,000. Supposing in a full year this expenditure runs to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. That would represent a penny on the Income Tax. I am not despising even a penny on the Income Tax. I know what it means, because the burden is very heavy now, but I wish to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. We are ail Income Tax payers here. There is not one man belonging to any party here, if it were put to him whether he would like to gain a penny in the Income Tax at the expense of taking 8s. a week from the household of a sick workman who would not disdain the offer. Why should we insult our constituents by assuming that they are less humane or less just than we are? The right hon. Gentleman has described the transaction fairly when he used the word "mean" in anticipation of what would be said about this proposal. However hard up you may be, it is a mean way of making money to pluck feathers out of the pillow of a sick man, and this is what this proposal is really tantamount to.
There is another objection to this proposal, and it is that it constitutes a distinet breach of faith with the industrial classes of this country, and that in itself is full of mischief and danger at the present moment. It is the kind of thing which undoubtedly did harm in regard to the relations between trade unionists and employers over piece-work. It has created a feeling of suspicion which has made it impossible to pursue that policy in the future. I know how difficult it was during the War to get workmen to do it, because they had always got in mind that the moment a man made a lot of money by throwing himself into his job, working hard and late, and his wage bill came to a big amount, the price was broken, and the result has created a feeling of suspicion, and this made it impossible during
the War to restore that method of increasing production.
The right hon. Gentleman is doing pretty much the same thing now. Here is a bargain with the workers. It has turned out better than anybody anticipated. All our critics said, "You are not going to be able to pay these benefits; this is a bankrupt scheme." Our advisers said, "No, you will be able to pay them, and you may have a small margin." But it has turned out to be much better than anybody expected. The moment it has turned out to be a good bargain for the workers, you say, "We will break that bargain and take the cash away." It is their money. It is the money of the industry, it has been contributed for years, and there has always been a hope in the minds of the approved societies, who represent 14,000,000 workers, that a time would come when you could increase the benefit. The time has come, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I will take away my contribution, and, therefore, we will postpone your benefit." It is full of mischief, this breaking of a definite pledge. It has been accepted by all parties for, now, 15 years, and, on the Ides of March, 1926, the Chancellor of the Exchequer breaks it.
After all, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really save money by this transaction? He does not. The burdens of the community will not be lessened by one penny by these transactions. If you had a naval holiday for 10 years, on the assumption, which I am told even the Government are prepared to act upon, that there will be no war at least for 10 years—if you had a naval holiday for 10 years, the money would be saved. You do not save the money by taking it away from this Fund. Why? Does anyone imagine that, where there is a sick man who only gets 8s. 7d. out of the Fund, the local authority will not come to his aid? It simply throws the whole of it upon the rates. There has been a change—and we ought to thank God for that—in the whole temper of the administration of relief in the course of the last few years—a complete change. Many of us remember the old bullying, hectoring days of the guardians, when, in order to get three or four shillings, a working woman had to appear before them and be cross-examined
with regard to her means, and what she was going to do with it. All that is gone, and we ought to be proud of the fact. What happens now? 8s 7d. will not keep a family going, and the only result will be that the wife will have to appeal to the guardians to supplement that amount. She will get it. It will he done at the expense of a certain amount of pride, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot cash that pride. The money will be found by the community, and, after all, the rates are weighing more heavily upon the industries of this country than the Income Tax—much more heavily.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and I am sure that the Minister of Health, who is sitting beside him, knows it, because I remember his coming in a deputation on the subject, and putting to me the hard case of the industries in areas where they had to pay 20s. in the £ in rates, and even more. They had to pay that when they could hardly make any profit at all. Everybody knows how it is crippling the shipbuilding industry in the North of England, and also housing. All these industries have been very hard hit by it. The right hon. Gentleman's idea of economy is something that will enable him to take a penny or two off the Income Tax, and, on the other hand, increase the burden on those workshops that are quite unable to find the rates at the present moment. That is not economy; it is really a sham and a deceit.
Then the right hon. Gentleman does exactly the same thing with the Road Fund. He seems to me to have given very clear indications about that. I hope I am wrong; I shall he glad if he contradicts me here; I think nothing would be more valuable than an interruption from him on this. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that the Road Fund has a surplus. They cannot use it, because they will not use it. What are they doing? There is no doubt that one of the greatest needs of business at the present moment is new roads, new avenues, the widening of old roads, in order to facilitate traffic. The business of this country is losing far more in delays than any burden which you can put upon it by means of a tax on motors. The last attempt at making any new roads of any sort or kind was in 1921. Those roads now are almost completed; I saw them dawdling with one the other
day, in order, so to speak, to keep the thing going, and I have no doubt there are hon. Friends of mine who see exactly the same kind of thing going on. But this work ought to be done; it is in the interests of commerce and business that it should be done, to improve traffic. It is one of the great problems of trade, of civilisation. You cannot have improved housing in this country without a great road programme, and the right hon. Gentleman is talking about raiding the Road Fund, the Fund which ought to be there for the purpose of improving the roads. Does be really mean to suggest that that is going to be an economy? It will be a new burden on the community; at any rate, it will prevent the community from relieving one of the greatest of its existing burdens, and a growing burden—the burden of congestion in traffic. That is a miserable form of economy which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.
Take, again, his unemployment insurance proposal. That is a breach of faith; that penny was promised to industry. What does he do? I remember very well that that was put on to meet an emergency, but it was made quite clear at the time that it was an emergency tax, and that when the emergency was over it would be taken away. The right hon. Gentleman is going to keep it there for another purpose—in order to relieve others; but they are not the same people. Take a man who has 1,000 workmen. If he is paying a penny in respect of each of them, that is about £200 a year. The only relief that would be obtained in Income Tax, by a man who would make the kind of profit that that man would make, would be about £15 to £20. He would be paying£200 on his industry, in order to relieve others to the extent of £15 or £20 of their Income Tax. It is a breach of faith; it is unfair, and it is hitting industry, but it is not economy. Even if it were wise, ii is not economy; it is simply shifting the burden from one shoulder on to the other. This is called an Economy Bill, but economy has nothing whatever to do with these proposals.
I would ask my right hon. Friend, if I may, is it worth his while, is it wise, to attack these social funds at the present moment. I do not believe there is; anything of which this country ought to be prouder than the effort which it
has made, and which it has continued to make in spite of these burdens, to relieve distress and privation which were undeserved. The new sentiment which was roused by the War, when classes were drawn together, and got to know each other better, and met in closer contact, raised a sense of social justice which was hardly there before; and great efforts have been made, by the consent of every class of the community, to do something to get rid of privation which everyone accepted before as the decree of Providence. Everyone knows that we have not done all that we ought to do. The Minister of Health, in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head, said so. He said he looked to further development in that direction. That is a fine sentiment, if I may say so, but it is not the sentiment which the right hon. Gentleman is here defending to-day. He is defending now a going back, and not a going forward. Is it wise to do it now?
I have heard great criticisms as to the money we have been spending on unemployment and social services, but I would ask any man in this House, and I would specially ask men who have had some share in Government during the years after the War, what would have happened during six years of unemployment, running from a million up to 2½millions, if you had not made these efforts to prevent hunger and famine? We have had from a million to 2½ millions walking the streets for six years, and not a drop of blood has been shed—there has been no riot. It would have been absolutely impossible, but that these sacrifices were made. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not, before he is out of trouble, to attack these social funds that have begun to give a kind of sense to the working people that they are beginning, at any rate, to have a fair show in life. There are dangers which attack every country. There are the external dangers. We have had an example of some of those dangers at Geneva during the last few days. I do not believe, in spite of a very discouraging spectacle, that anything grave is going to happen in Europe or in the world for some years to come. It is very discouraging; it is very depressing, but I do not believe that nations will fly at each other's throats, and I think that any Government could wisely decide not to
burden its people with armaments without having any fear that there would be an attack upon the integrity of our shores.
The right hon. Gentleman and others have asked, "What is your alternative?" I should say at once that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to say to the Government that he will only find so much for armaments. Let them settle how it can best be done. Put the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air and the First Lord of the Admiralty together; lock them up in a room until they have settled it. I believe the First Lord of the Admiralty is the only one who would come out alive, for he is an armoured cruiser. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should say to them, "It is no use coming to me with little reductions here which are not realities; just cut down by £20,000,000." Let them put their heads together as to the best method of dealing with the defence of this country. Instead, in order to avoid facing those difficulties, in order to avoid bringing pressure to bear upon these Services—which have got their power, have got their influence, have got their prestige—he is cutting down social services, he is attacking the funds for the sick and for the unemployed. I really think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, by anticipation, given the only epithets which would justly apply to proposals of this kind, and I hope that the House of Commons this afternoon will reject them with disdain.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: The House has listened with great admiration to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The pith and point of it, summed up in his concluding sentences, was, "Ration the fighting Departments."I have, one amendment to make to that suggestion. I would ration all Departments. Until we do that we shall not get the economy that most of us are seeking. The whole House listened yesterday with, I believe, mingled admiration and disappointment to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We all listened with admiration. The right hon. Gentleman touches nothing in the realm of debate that he does not adorn. But many of us felt disappointment because even his supreme art—and as the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says there is no greater artist in the House—could not
entirely conceal the meagre contents of the cupboard which he had to open to our inspection. So I suggest that the general effect of that brilliant and lengthy speech was profoundly discouraging and disappointing. But, at any rate, I felt that the Chancellor was a good man struggling with adversity. I have not felt the same in regard to either of the brilliant speeches by the two right hen. Gentlemen opposite. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is not a good man, but I do not think he was struggling with adversity.
It seemed to me, on the contrary, that he was gleefully revelling in the adversity of an opponent. But it is not really that opponent in whose adversity he was rejoicing, it is the adversity of the nation as a whole, and I hope the nation as a whole and the taxpayers and the ratepayers will take note of the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman answered the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that the taxpayers and ratepayers outside will be content that those who take part in this Debate, as important a Debate as has been initiated in this House for a very long time, should indulge only in petty party recrimination. The position of those ratepayers and taxpayers is a great deal too serious for those recriminations, and still more serious is the position of the trade of the country. The burden that rests upon the individual is mainly hurtful because of the impediment it imposes to the recovery of trade.
I want, in the first place, to suggest that in these proposals that are made to the House of Commons the Government have not really exhibited the courage of their convictions. Over and over again in the House and in the country members of the Government have expressed the view that there is only one sovereign remedy for unemployment, and that is the improvement of our regular and legitimate trade. I for one, very cordially share that view. But all parties in the House have insisted that an essential preliminary to that improvement of trade is to be found in the relief of the burden of taxation. Again I cordially agree. But let the House look at that formidable list of additional burdens of expenditure quoted to us yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, imposed not by the wicked
Labour party when they were in office, not by the Coalition Government when they were in power, but by this Government since December, 1924. He said previous Parliaments have added, I think, about £8,000,000 to our expenditure, but this Parliament, since the right hen. Gentleman was in office with an enormous majority behind him has added £24,447,000 to our expenditure, and this after the expression of the conviction that of all the deterrent influences to a recovery of trade the greatest is an addition to our taxation.
If the Government had had the courage of their convictions they ought not to have allowed one penny of that additional expenditure to be accepted. Over and over again from Members of the Front Bench, whatever party was in power, I have heard the taunt to back benchers of preaching but not practising economy. We have been told over and over again that the House of Commons is the most extravagant of the spending Departments. There is not a Member of the House who has not heard that taunt a hundred times. I am far from denying that there is some particle of truth in it, but when I analyse, as I hope the House and the country will analyse, the list the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us yesterday of increases in expenditure, I find not a, single item that was proposed to the House under the pressure of an irresistible popular or Parliamentary demand. In every single case the initiative came from the Government, or more probably from the Departments over which Ministers respectively preside.
But I do not want to indulge in purely destructive criticism. I do not want to be unhelpful to the Government, and still less unhelpful to the country, therefore I am going to be so bold as to make one or two positive suggestions. The first is to enforce the admirable appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) yesterday. The pith of his speech was, Conserve our capital resources in order to improve our public credit. My hon. Friend pointed, as everyone who seriously considers the present position must point, to the fact that of all the items this House has to meet, by far the most formidable is the interest on the National Debt, and that interest can only be honourably reduced by such an improvement in our public credit as will
enable us to undertake a reasonable conversion of the debt. I should like to see the experiment tried, when next year and in the two following years we have to meet maturities of something approaching £1,000,000,000, of a really tax free loan—not like your 4 per cent loan, but a loan which shall really be tax free—at a very low denomination—3 per cent., or, if you like, 2½ per cent. I believe to such a proposition there would be a very considerable response. But in making that suggestion I do not want in any way to divert attention from the real sinners, I mean the executive Departments of the State.
According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer we have only £165,000,000 that we can operate with at all in respect of economy. I am not at all convinced that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's second category—he divided expenditure into four categories—ought to be removed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer summarily removed it., from all possibilities of reduction. For example, included in Category 2 were all the housing schemes. There is an Act, which we opposed when it was passing through the House, associated with the name of the late Minister of Health. It is still on the Statute Book. I should like to see it removed, for as long as it remains there will be a persistent temptation to local authorities to adopt it in preference to those which have since been passed, and if my information is at all correct, at this moment the local authorities are tending more and more to rely on the superior terms of the Act associated with the late Minister of Health.
Then I want to urge, with all the earnestness I can command, that there is a very pressing need for a re-classification and a more scientific co-ordination of our public services. This Bill is largely based on the Report of the National Health Commissioners. That is, as it seems to me, an exceedingly able but a terribly disquieting document. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, "Do not attack our social funds." That is not a line of attack in which I want to indulge, but as he referred so pointedly to the Report of these Commissioners, I should like to remind the House that the account he gave—I am sure quite unintentionally—does not seem to me to accord completely with the main argu-
ment of the Commissioners, for here is their general conclusion. They are talking about social services.
 It is clearly essential that a balance between the expenditure on these schemes and the productive capacity of the country should from time to time, be struck.…We feel that there may come a time, and, in fact, there has come a time, when the State may justifiably turn from searching its conscience to exploring its purse.
That is on page 73 of the Report. I want to commend these words to the House as the general conclusion at which the Commissioners have arrived, that the time has come "to turn from searching our social conscience to exploring our purse." When I turn to the detailed argument on which that conclusion is based, I notice that—I am quoting from page 69—the total of social services in regard to which that conclusion was reached amounts at present to not less than£308,000,000 a year, a charge for social services actually in excess of the debt charge to which my right hon. Friend referred yesterday. I suggest that in our present classification some of the items of these social charges are very misleading. Two or three years ago there sat a very important Committee, under-the chairmanship of Lord Haldane, on the machinery of Government. That Committee very carefully examined what they called the articulation of our administrative functions. The question to which they addressed themselves was whether that articulation should proceed according to the service to be performed or according to the persons and classes to he dealt with. The Committee observed, very properly in my opinion, that neither principle could be applied with absolute or exclusive rigidity, but the Committee did pronounce un-equivocably in favour of differentiation according to services.
Now let the House examine the list a these social services and our expenditure upon them, as contained in the Report of the Commission. The first, at the top of page 69, is Public Education, which is put down at £86,600,000 this year. It is true that the taxpayer and the ratepayer have to find for the Education Office that enormous sum, but I submit that the local education authorities are doing work sonic of which ought properly to fall on the relieving officer and the health officials. I know that a great deal of
that work is excellent in character. Take the orthopædic hospitals. Very excellent work is being done in that way, and they are spending large sums upon it. These orthopædic hospitals are largely maintained, or to a considerable extent maintained, out of education funds. I would take that work entirely away from the education authorities and put it into the hands of the people to whom it properly belongs, namely, the health authorities. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW would you reduce it?"] I do not say that I would diminish it. I said no word about diminishing it. I am talking about classification.
Then again, I believe we shall never get economy in these services until we have a consolidation of social insurance. We have Unemployment Insurance, Health Insurance, Workmen's Compensation, Old Age and Military Pensions, and Poor Law relief. I would bring the whole of these services under one single Department. Until you do that, you will never get rid of that overlapping to the details of which I drew the attention of the House two or three years ago on a private Member's Motion. I am afraid I shall not have the opportunity of doing so a fortnight hence. I then mentioned to the House a number of cases which were causing public scandal in the overlapping of these public services. But it is not the scandalous cases of overlapping which come before the public attention by prosecution and in other ways, it is the thousand little overlappings which never come even to the attention of the Departments concerned.
There is an immense amount of administrative duplication and overlapping. I have again and again urged on the Prime Minister the importance of appointing a Royal Commission to consider this question of overlapping in the public services, but I must admit that I have always received a very discouraging reply. I would again appeal to him to consider whether the time has not come for considering— I do not care what the inquiry is, whether by Royal Commission or inter-Departmental Committee—whether we ought not to bring into a single department of public assistance all the services which I have enumerated. I know perfectly well that I am only working, on the computation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a
sum of £165,000,000. On my computation by throwing in categories two and four, I am working on a sum of about£255,000,000. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House, not intentionally, by unnecessarily curtailing the possible area of relief by the classifications which he adopted. I conclude with three definite suggestions. First, I would combine two of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's four categories, namely, the second and the fourth categories, which would give a possible area for reduction and relief of £255,000,000 instead of£165,000,000 to work upon. In the second place, I would attack category 1 in the spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford. In the third place, I would concentrate public assistance services in a single Department, and consolidate social insurance, including workmen's compensation, in one single comprehensive scheme. I do not say that by that or any other means we shall achieve dramatic retrenchment, but I believe we should make an appreciable contribution to the problem of public economy.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: In the Debate this afternoon I think I am right in saying that no one has devoted much attention to that portion of the Bill which relates to educational economies. We have been asked by the previous speaker not to impart into this discussion too-exaggerated partisan considerations. It is fair to point out that the Government itself is to blame if strenuous criticism is directed to its attitude on education in this Bill. I think most hon. Members will agree with me when I say that it is well known that the Government issued during the last General Election a clear, explicit pledge on behalf of their party concerning education. They said, in effect that whatever merits applied to the policy of the previous Government and whatever progressive work they had attempted, the succeeding Tory Government would endeavour to carry on. Not only were we told that during the last election, but we had explicit statements of policy from at least three leading Members of the Cabinet. I take first the Prime Minister. Speaking at Aberdeen, he said:
 The Government is now scrutinising with the utmost care the Estimates of every Department. Every economy that can be
made is going to be made, however unpopular it may be, but we cannot economise to that point to reduce our defensive forces below what we believe to be necessary for the safety of the Empire, nor can we make economies which might touch the education or the health of the people in such a way that the burden of these economies would rest on one class and one alone.
I think it can be claimed with truth that, whatever economy may be effected in regard to education through the medium of this Bill, that economy, such as it is, will fall upon the shoulders of one class and one class alone. Not only did the Prime Minister pledge his party, but one of his chief adjutants similarly pledged himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, during last June, said of education.
it is absolutely necessary that thrift and economy should be practised in every branch of our services. Value for money must be achieved, but the course of education must never be set back. It must roll forward from one generation to another.
6.0 P.M.
All I can say is that the rolling process is in considerable danger of being arrested just now. Not only has the Chancellor or the Exchequer committed himself in this way, but the President, of the Board of Education has similarly committed himself. Not only has he done so by speeches in this Home but on a multitude of platforms up and down the country. We have been told that he has addressed something like 50 odd meetings at which, without exception, he undertook the somewhat difficult task of stimulating and exhorting the laggards, educationally, and encouraging and enthusing the progressives. What has been the result of this Presidential pilgrimage up and down the country? We have received this week an intimation of what the Government proposes. It is not the only indication we have had of the Government's mind concerning education. At the end of his pilgrimage, the right hon. Gentleman published the famous Circular 1371, which evoked a storm of protest up and down the country. After discussion with the local authorities who effected a temporary agreement with him, as I understand, Memorandum 44 was published. and Memorandum 44 very largely superseded Circular 1371. Now we are told that Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44 may he regarded as having been withdrawn. May I quote what the right hon. Gentleman himself said in regard to his general policy on
education. Speaking at the Ladies' Carlton Club, as reported in the "Morning Post," the Noble Lord said:
At the last Election the Conservative party announced a programme of educational advance, and it was approved by a vast majority of the teaching body and all interested in education. Policies announced in opposition were apt to be more ambitious than practical, but since he had been in office he had seen no reason to withdraw one single word of the policy the Government had put forward. It represented the broad lines on which educational advance must proceed in this country. He had been reminded during the last week of the importance of continuity in educational advance. He felt very deeply his duty to his predecessors at the Board of Education, and he would try to carry out a continuance of the policy with them; but it must be a policy of reality.
My submission is this; that the particular proposal in this Bill, far from being in accord with a continuity of policy, is in effect a deliberate breath of faith with the local authorities of this country. Let me give him another quotation. When speaking to local authorities inside the Board of Education on 31st January last year be said:
 We must proceed on the basis that the grant system is going to remain substantially as at present. We must start from the basis that local authorities are to estimate how far they can go financially under the present arrangements, and not on the hypothesis that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may four years hence be willing to alter these arrangements.
We have not had to wait four years for an alteration of the system. We have scarcely survived 12 months before the explicit pledge contained in this paragraph has been torn to shreds. The very basis of the grants which the Noble Lord promised were to be made substantially as they were then are all challenged and threatened by this Bill. The President of the Board of Education has said repeatedly that he has been misunderstood in this matter, and when the great outcry took place concerning the implications of Circular 1371, the Noble Lord issued an explanation and the next day he explained the explanation. He first of all told us that the scheme was one to effect educational economy, then he told us that it was not economy but chiefly education ho had in mind. Since then it has become both. I submit it is neither. There is no economy in this Bill, nor is there any educational progress in it. Indeed it is quite easy to prove that there
is no saving in this Bill at all. There is a transference of expenditure from one authority to another, from the central authority to the local authority, but so far from being a real economy and a real saving of money, so long as local authorities carry out their progressive policy there can be no saving whatever.
I should like to ask the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education one question which has troubled me a good deal in regard to one Clause in this Bill. I looked up the Education Act, 1921, to which this Bill refers. The first Section, as I gather, remains unaffected by this Bill. It states in quite explicit terms what are the legal rights of local authorities concerning grants. I need not repeat the whole of the Section, but the part that is material is this:
and nothing in this or any other Act of Parliament shall prevent the Board from paying grants to an authority in respect of any expenditure which the authority may lawfully incur.
Therefore, as long as the expenditure is lawful, that Section deprives the Board of the right of withholding a grant in respect of such lawful expenditure. I am open to correction in the matter, but that is how I interpret that particular Section. Then the next Section to which this Bill refers is a Section of the Act of 1921, which dealt with the percentage grant and the deficiency grant. As I interpret it, the first Sub-section places emphasis upon legal expenditure. In this new Bill it is not what is legal, but rather what is deemed by the Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education to be not illegal but excessive expenditure. He is to determine what is excessive and what is not. What is the standard of judgment? It is on this matter that I find the greatest menace in this Bill.
The standard of judgment in this new Bill, as I see it, may very well be not the needs of any particular authority whose estimates are being challenged, but the expenditure of some neighbouring authority. Under this Bill the President has a right to say that he will not approve the expenditure of Authority A because Authority B, whose area is contiguous with that of Authority A, is not embarking upon a like type of expenditure, and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent him, if he thinks fit, depriving the progressive authority of its right to
embark on progressive administration because a retrogressive authority in a neighbouring area does not embark on a similar policy. That, is a new standard of judgment. We are now estimating our proper educational expenditure under this Bill, not upon the standard of progressive needs at all, we are to judge progressive people with people of a lower educational standard. And there is nothing in this Bill that deprives the President of the right to act in that way or compel him to bring the more retrogressive authority up to the level of the more progressive. Local authorities surely have a right to know the position in regard to their expenditure in the future. The Noble Lord himself from this Box, some three or four years ago, raised the question of giving arbitrary authority to the then Minister of Education—

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Not from that Box.

Mr. JONES: Well, from this side of the House. Anyway, the speech was made, and he challenged the wisdom of the House in granting to the then Minister of Education arbitrary authority in the sense of giving him the right to determine what should and should not rank for grants on the part of the Board of Education. I know he has made other references which, perhaps, modify that attitude a little, but he raised that general principle in that speech. In this Bill there is no attempt whatever to provide the President with a clear and definite standard whereby he may judge the needs of local authorities, nor is there any clear delineation of the rights of local authorities. The President of the Board of Education becomes the sole arbiter as to what is proper and what is excessive expenditure. He may please himself as to what judgment he may care to give. For the last 12 months local authorities have been confronted with a policy which has been vacillating, changeable and fluctuating, to an extent to which they have not been acquainted for many long years. First of all, the Noble Lord's policy was advance, his next was the abandonment of the percentage grant, his next, not an abandonment of the grants, but a stagnation of expenditure generally.
What his new policy is no one knows and there is nothing in this Bill which enables local authorities to extort from him what his policy is to be. There are something like 665 schools in this country which have been deemed either to be unfit for occupation by children or in such a bad condition of repair that they require immediate attention. The question I want to raise is this. If local authorities are to be called upon to embark upon expenditure in bringing these schools into a fit condition for occupation, how can it be done if the President himself is going to demand at the same time a reduction of their expenditure? It simply cannot be done. You cannot keep your buildings generally in a fit condition to meet the progressive needs of the community and at the same time demand a reduction of educational expenditure. The time has come when, far from demanding from local authorities a reduction of expenditure in that connection, we are entitled to ask for an expansion. Indeed, I find justification for that statement in the White Paper issued in connection with this Bill by the Board itself. On page 3 I find this statement:—
In regard to other expenditure, it seems difficult to accept as justifiable an average increase of 15 per cent. over the 1923–24 basis without further information. it is true that during what is known as the Geddes period, expenditure both on hooks, stationery, and on upkeep of buildings and grounds, was abnormally depressed.
We are only two years away, at most, from that Geddes period of parsimony. It is impossible to suppose that we have overtaken entirely the arrears in the matter of buildings that accrued during the War and during the further period of depression under the Geddes Committee's recommendations. Therefore, it is clear that we must prepare our minds for a further expense upon educational buildings, rather than a decrease. I submit to. the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the time for introducing a proposal such as this, even within the four corners of a Bill wrongly called an Economy Bill. It is often argued in this House and elsewhere that we do not get value for our money in respect of our expenditure upon education. I wonder how many Members of the House are acquainted with the very remarkable decline in expenditure upon criminals under the age of 16 in this country to-day as compared with the year 1870. I do not argue, of course, that
all the decline is due to education; I admit it is not. But no one would say that 50 years of elementary education has had no effect in producing these results.
The results are somewhat staggering. In 1870, of the boys under 16 years of age, there were 8,619 who were convicted. In the year 1910 that figure had been reduced to 48, and in the year 1919 it was reduced to 25. In the year 1870 there were 1,379 girls convicted. In the year 1910 there were only three such girls put into prison, and in the year 1919 there was none. I do not read into those figures more than the figures will legitimately bear. My point is that it has obviously been a wise expenditure on the part of the State to equip the people with education, for it has given in return a tremendous reduction in expenditure upon our gaols and prisons. It has given to our population a finer sense of citizenship, and has removed from society the curse which those 1870 figures indicate.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman make that statement clear? He referred first t persons "convicted," and afterwards he used the expression "sent to prison." Are they both actually the same? It does not necessarily follow that all those who were convicted went to prison.

Mr. JONES: I think they were convicted.

Mr. HERBERT: In all cases?

Mr. JONES: In all cases. Take the people over 16. There were 107,000 men and 39,604 women convicted in 1870. By 1918 the number had been reduced to 22,000 men and 8,000 women. In fact we have had a real return from our expenditure upon our educational system. The Noble Lord the President of the Board of Education, in his last speech warned a right hon. Friend that those whom the Gods loved died young. The Noble Lord himself is at a. somewhat dangerous age, and it does not, perhaps. become him to issue warnings of that sort. But I will complete his acquaintance with adages concerning the ways of the Gods by telling him that those whom the Gods would destroy politically they first make politically mad. This is the beginning of the political madness to which I have referred. The inevitable consequence must presently be to take the Noble Lord
and his colleagues, and if there is anything that I can do in the direction of assisting the removal of those who lay their impious hands on the ark of education, I shall be happy indeed to do it.

Captain STREATFEILD: I rise to support the Bill, and I hope that for a very few moments only I may crave the indulgence of the House while I tread the somewhat thorny way besetting those who have the honour to speak in this House for the first time. Taken as a whole, the Bill is designed as a measure of economy, though one must confess to a certain amount of disappointment at finding that there is a matter of only £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 saved as a result. When one considers national expenditure and the fact that the Estimates next financial year are to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £800,000,000, that is a very small amount to save. It represents about one or one-and-a-quarter per cent. It is not enough to permit reduced taxation, which is what we want to get. It is riot enough to reduce that taxation burden which is clinging like an old man of the sea around the neck of the Sinbad of industry. The Bill deals with. a certain type of economy. It is a type of economy which is a saving to the Exchequer. It saves money now and it in the future directly to the Exchequer only. But I suggest that there is another type of economy that we want to get as well. The type that I refer to is an arrangement so that, when saviors are made, they are not taken by the Exchequer and kept there, but are passed On. to industry to relieve it from a crushing burden of taxation. That is the type of economy which we want more than the type catered for in this Bill, which simply means that we can only expect alleviation of our burdens at some indefinite and future date, and not at once.
We have to grapple with the immediate problem as well as the future problem, and I must confess that I am sorry to see that there is nothing of the former nature catered for in this Bill. For example, if you take Clauses 1 to 7, which deal with the question of the national health insurance funds, the proposal is to reduce the State contribution. The surpluses there, we have been told, amount to something like £65,000,000. It appears to me as if the employers and the employed had been contributing out of their re-
sources really more than was necessary. If, as is proposed in this Bill, the State uses that surplus for reducing its contribution to these funds, that is a type of economy which is a saving to the Exchequer only which gives a benefit, perhaps, at some future date. If, on the other hand, the State passes on the advantage given by that very large surplus to the contributors, the employers and the employed in the shape of requiring reduced contributions from them, that is a type of economy which has an immediate and a very beneficial effect on industry. That applies particularly to the industry of agriculture. There are certain branches of agriculture, at d certain districts, which are just now wobbling on the brink of disaster. An alleviation such as that, the passing on of the advantage of these big funds to industries like that, and to other industries, would go a long way to make the Bill more helpful than it is.
We have had a certain number of suggestions made. I do not want to put forward suggestions. I prefer to leave that task to those sitting on the Front Benches, who have more Parliamentary experience than I have. One or two suggestions which came from the opposite side of the House, I must confess, caused me a certain amount of amazement. If I read his words aright, there was a suggestion from the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)—it was more an invocation than a suggestion— which seemed to indicate that the thing to do was to reduce the interest on the War debt. That seemed to me to be one of the most curious, and, if I may say so with the very greatest respect, one of the most futile suggestions that has come from the opposite side of the House, particularly from a right hon. Gentleman who has occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can just imagine the upheaval that would be caused in the commercial world if such a step were taken. I am not certain whether such a step would have been taken if the right hon. Gentleman had remained in office. If we were compelled, under such an administration, to labour under that idea, the last state of the country would be worse than the first.
There was another suggestion, and a more startling one still, which came from the opposite side of the House. In that
I have as little faith as in the suggestion to which I have just referred. It came from the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones). It was a suggestion that the hat should be passed round. We have had in this House more famous hats, perhaps, than that. We had the famous hat of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). The suggestion made yesterday about passing the hat round and gathering voluntary subscriptions to the Exchequer, would have about as much effect as the hat belonging to the right hon. Member for Preston has had. Although I am to a certain extent disappointed with the Bill, for these reasons, I hope that when the Minister of Health replies he may be able to say something about the passing on of the advantages of big Insurance funds directly to the people concerned in industry, and not retaining the advantage to the Exchequer. I trust that the Bill, though it is disappointing to a certain extent, is but the precursor of other similar Measures. Bills of this sort will possibly be unpopular; but I urge the Government, with their enormous majority, to be bold in dealing with the vital subject of economy. I do not think there is any hon. Member on this side who would not be glad to back up the Government to the fullest extent on these Measures, however great the opposition to them may be, if only the Government stick to their gulls, and go ahead on the right lines.
I may cause some surprise to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite if I plead with them that they ought to support this Bill. I put it to them that this Bill, by helping industry, and by assisting eventually, though not immediately, to relieve the crushing burden of taxation, will go a long way towards reducing unemployment. [Laughter.] There are derisive interjections from hon. Members opposite at that statement, as I might have expected, but if they do not support this Bill, I suggest they are recording a vote which will increase and not reduce unemployment; they are letting down those splendid workers whom they claim to represent, and I only hope that if they do so, they will be handed down to posterity as those who lifted not one single finger to help the people in their hour of need.

Mr. HARNEY: May I congratulate the last speaker on a very excellent maiden speech. There are many criticisms which one would wish to pass on this Bill, but, as my time is limited, I desire only to deal with those points which I think have escaped notice so far in this Debate. The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to be under a misapprehension which I think is one of the causes of this attack—made for purposes of economy—upon the National Health Insurance system. The hon. Member said we had £65,000,000 of surpluses scattered over these societies, which indicated that the contributions were too high. That is entirely wrong. The very structure of the Act of 1911, the very machinery of the system involves the necessity for surpluses. When the cooperation of the friendly societies was sought, it was known that there were some friendly societies better off than others, and with members of a more healthy class. A rate of contributions which would keep the average society in a state of solvency, since it was a flat rate, was bound to result in the successful societies accumulating surpluses. Knowing this at the time, the friendly societies refused to bring their organisation into the scheme, unless it was clearly undertaken—as undoubtedly it was—that such of them as were able by efficient management, good fortune, or a good selection of members, to create surpluses would have the full benefit of those surpluses in deferred or additional benefits. Therefore, it is a misapprehension which causes those, who have not gone thoroughly into the matter, to say: "Let us go for these surpluses; they are accumulating and the sums rushing into the Fund are greater than the Fund requires." That is not the case.
The next point which has not been brought out is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that this Bill will not cut down benefits and will not lengthen the period within which the sinking fund is to be cleared off. In my submission, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. The benefits arising under the National Health Insurance Act are three in number. First, there are the minimum benefits or the ordinary maternity and disablement allowances. Secondly, there are the additional or deferred benefits, springing out of the surpluses which are an essential
feature of the scheme. These are not problematical benefits, but are actually defined in a Schedule to the Act. Thirdly, there are the benefits which are called "extended benefits" and which arise in this way. When a number of persons come for the first time into an insurance system, each contributing at the same rate and each getting the same benefit, but where they are of different ages, it follows that, unless some provision is made, one person will get more benefit for less payment than another. The provision made in this case was that each person on entering was credited with an amount which represented what his value would have been, had he been contributing from the earliest age. These were paper pledges for which the State was responsible, and in order to pay them off, the State arranged the sinking fund, and, in order to wipe out the sinking fund, it. arranged that there should be an addition to the amount which the contribution would otherwise he. That is how the ninepence is obtained. The ninepence is not the actuarial figure necessary to produce ordinary benefit, but is the figure necessary to produce, firstly, the minimum benefit, secondly, the benefits arising out of the surpluses, and, thirdly, the benefits, arising out of the addition necessary to wipe out the sinking fund, which benefits would come into operation when the sinking fund had been wiped out.
There can be no doubt about it, that this Bill, though it leaves untouched the minimum benefits, cuts down the promised benefits arising out of the surpluses and the extended benefits which would come into operation when the sinking fund has been wiped out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also seems to suggest, and it certainly is suggested in the White Paper, that although we are diminishing the stream which flows into this fund, out of which we draw the three benefits I have mentioned, the present benefits will remain untouched and still the sinking fund will be wiped out in the same period as if the Bill had never been passed. That is not so, and the fact is obvious from a Clause in the Bill itself. The effect of Clause 3 is very correctly expressed in the marginal note:
 Application of Reserve Suspense Fund and Central Fund towards making good deficiencies due to the provisions of this Part of the Act.
In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates that while, in the name of economy, he is restricting the source from which the benefits come, that very process will result in the creation of deficiencies which, again, will have to he filled from sonic other source. That is a curious form of economy. What, then, is the source from which these deficiencies created by this Bill are to be filled? It is the Reserve Suspense Fund. It may be asked: What is that Fund? I have explained to the House as briefly as I could the reserve values which are credited to each contributor to make up for differences in age. It was intended, in the first instance, as persons passed out of insurance to help along the benefit fund by these reserve values, and when during the War a great number of insured persons were killed, the question again arose as to the disposal of these reserve values. An Act was passed under which they went into the Reserve Suspense Fund. That Fund was to be used, and has been used, for enabling new entrants into insurance, who by reason of their age, would either have to pay greater contributions or receive less benefit than others, to receive the same benefit by the same contributions. When that had been done, if there was any balance in the Fund, that balance was to go towards wiping out the sinking fund.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in effect says, "Here is a proposal which will have the result of creating deficiencies "—[HON. MEMBERS: "No ! "] The Bill itself says that if on the valuation of an Approved Society, it appears that a deficiency will be disclosed in consequence of the provisions of this Bill the Minister may cause a sum to be paid out of the balance in the reserve suspense account to wipe out- that deficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "If!"] Everybody knows that the "if" represents a reality; otherwise for what is the Clause inserted? Is it to be thought that this Clause, containing three Sub-sections, is put into the Bill to deal with a contingency which may never arise? It is puerile to make such a suggestion. The Clause was put in because the actuary had worked out his figures and had found that it must necessarily follow, if you diminish the stream, that parts of the bottom will begin to show. This suspense fund which to-day is used to help poor people over 60 years of age to get the full benefit
without increased contribution, is to be taken away. That must be the effect of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies this raid, not on the Fund itself, but on that which leads to the Fund, on three grounds. The first ground is because under the Pensions Act of last year old age pensions become payable at the age of 65. Therefore, he argues, those responsible for the Approved Societies in respect of Health Insurance. will be saved the liability for the ages between 65 and 70; they will have more in hand and there will be something to take.
That is a fallacy. It is a fallacy on two grounds, the first of which is this: Provision was made in the Pensions Act of last year, on an actuarial basis, for a payment of, I think, 15d. from industry, from both sides, in order to give these new benefits, but that 5d. was reduced to 4½d. or 4d., because it was said: "Since you will have less benefits to give, you, the approved societies, in order to meet the relief thereby given to you, will receive less contributions." It is true that a State contribution was not referred to in the Bill of last year, but it must be remembered that the State contribution to the Health Act is not, as it is to the Unemployment Act, a fixed weekly figure, but two-ninths of the benefits, and, therefore, when you have the benefits that have to be given from 65 to 70 cut down, you have the gross sum less, and two-ninths of a less sum is a less figure, so that the State is relieved from its contribution automatically to that extent. Therefore, it is a complete fallacy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put forward, as a justification for this raiding, that by reason of the Pensions Act the approved societies are in a better position. They are not.
Another reason he gives is that the actuarial basis upon which the whole scheme was constructed in 1911 was that the accumulated funds would carry interest at the then rate of 3 per cent., but it has since had interest at a greater rate, and, therefore, the approved societies will have got the advantages of that greater rate. Have they? They have got it no more than all the rest of the community who are in possession of public funds. They all stand alike, and, furthermore, if they have got a slightly increased interest arising after 1911, they have a greater cost of administration to
pay by reason of higher wages, so that one wipes out the other. His last reason, which is the worst of all, is this: Since this came into operation, he says, all the advantages that accidentally arose have accrued to the benefit of the approved societies, and all the disadvantages have accrued to the State. It is, in my humble submission, exactly the contrary.
What are the advantages that have accrued? The first was that, by reason of its great success, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) pointed out, there were vast surpluses in some societies, and that was an advantage. But who got the benefit of it? A Commission in 1918, the Ryan Commission, took away a large portion of these balances from the approved societies, and took it away on the express promise, then given to them, that what was taken from them would be made up in the additional benefits that they would be able to give. What is the other advantage that arose? It was that persona with reserve values passed away. That was an advantage to the approved societies, but who got it? The State comes along and says: "You will not get it; we will pass it to the suspense account." So that the only two advantages that arose, so far from accruing to the approved societies and being against the State, were taken advantage of by the State to the disadvantage of the approved societies, and now, when this reserve suspense account has been carved out to the disadvantage of the approved societies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and says: "We will take that." I cannot develop my argument further, as time is up, hut I hope that in Committee we will be able more thoroughly to thrash this out, because it seems to me to be a very contemptible endeavour on the part of the Government to make themselves appear better before the community, to get the credit of being able to say: "We have put on no extra taxation," and to do that at the expense of taking, under camouflage, from the very poorest class of the community the benefits to which they became entitled by the payment of their own money since 1911.

Mr. CLYNES: I hope not to address the House at any undue length, in order to leave to the right hon. Gentleman,
who has so much to answer, ample time in which to reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must already have divined the verdict and the real Parliamentary opinion on the Bill he has presented, and I hope he has had an opportunity to find out for himself what is both the Press and the public outlook upon his Economy Bill. It would be too much, of coarse, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw this Bill, but I forecast that, long before we have heard the last of it, the little enthusiasm which has been shown so far in its favour will have been reduced to almost a. chilling indifference for the proposals which are within it. The "Times" of this morning gives, I think, a quite accurate estimate of what relation this Bill bears to the situation which was raised for us by many previous pronouncements on behalf of the Government. Says the "Times":
Not even the most astute promoter can make a flyweight succeed in the heavyweight class.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a skilled Parliamentarian of great resource and almost unlimited gifts. There is nothing which he cannot defend, and very little, if required, that he will not desert, for those who listened to his speech of yesterday felt that he himself harboured the conviction that the Bill was but a poor and contemptible thing at best. For one and a half hours he addressed this House, with variations of information and entertainment which all of us enjoyed, but not 10 minutes of that time did he give either to an exposition or to a support of the Bill which we are called upon to consider, and I am not without hope that his own exhibition of contempt for the Measure will be followed up by a good deal of public disgust which rapidly will be revealed.
Of course, this Government has an abounding faith in public forgetfulness, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares that faith, and for that reason he now looks forward to a complete blotting out of memory with regard to that definite promise, given only quite recently —indeed, in the early part of last year— that we may look forward to a. continuous yearly reduction of £10,000,000 in national expenditure. The mention of that figure was given but a moderate reception. Hopes had been raised very much higher, and no doubt hundreds of millions were in the minds of those who
heard only ten spoken. But, instead of even this diminution of £10,000,000 in national expenditure, we have an increase of nearly that figure. That is the contrast which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who, I understand, is to follow me, has to explain. I do not remember to have listened to any two days' Debate in which there has been more repeated and explicit proof of broken promises and indifference towards them than this Debate has revealed, but I do not expect this Government to be any more true to its pledges than this Bill can be true to its Title.
The pledges were given not merely openly in this House, but, as we know, years ago through the medium of repeated conferences and consultations with the representative bodies acting for those who had to be insured, both in regard to unemployment and to conditions of health. There have been no consultations of a similar kind with the same persons or with aggrieved organisations, who now have an increasing right to protest against the way in which the Government proposes to deal with their savings and reserves, and I accordingly describe this Bill, not as a Bill to effect any economy, for apart from a little saving on printing, it will do no such thing, but as a Bill to effect a transference of payments intended for the use of tie poor in their hour of greatest need, and to effect that transference in order to save: a call for further payments from richer people. Nearly all who have addressed the House on this subject have regarded the Bill as being directed to three considerations or covering three questions. The Bill can be reduced, therefore, to one of imposing penalties upon the sick, upon the unemployed, and upon children in relation to their education. I saw a letter in the "Times" a day or two ago from Mr. F. Kershaw, president of the National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies. He is no mean authority, and clearly speaks as a representative voice or questions of health insurance. In his letter I find a statement to which I would like an answer. He writes:
The immediate and direct effect of the 'economy' proposal is to deprive an average working class household of eight shillings a week at a time of sickness, when in scores of thousands of households the total income
otherwise will be the ordinary sickness benefit of 15s. It is difficult to believe that a saving of about two million pounds a year to the taxpayer at the expense or a stricken household will meet with the approval of Parliament, or that it is economy in any sense of the word.
7.0 P.M.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health does not think much of the opinion of Mr. Kershaw, and, therefore, I would like, in relation to one branch of this Bill, to quote his own opinion. He will recall the discussions in this House, in the middle of last year, on the subject of contributory pensions, and he will recall particularly his answer to a speech made by the right hon. Member for the Hillhead Division (Sir R. Horne), in which he denounced in unqualified terms any suggestion to raid the surpluses of the approved societies. Such a step, he argued, would be a breach of faith involving the societies in ruin. The right hon. Gentleman said something, not on the subject of surpluses, but on the question of reduced contributions. I cannot find in the report of his speech that he distinguished between the contributions of the insured person, of the employer, or of the State. Speaking expressly on that question of contributions, he said:
 If you reduce the contributions you must add to the number of societies that will be deficient and decrease the number of societies that have surpluses. It is certain that you are going to throw the whole scheme into discredit if you are going to put a large number of societies into deficiency.
Finally, he said:
Unless you have a sufficient margin of contributions your central fund will disappear altogether." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd July, 1925; col. 2369, Vol. 186.]
I therefore ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has modified in any way that expression of Parliamentary opinion which he uttered on the question of contributions.
Last night, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) was addressing the House he had repeated interjections from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor found a great deal of consolation in what no doubt he deemed to be an admission on the part of my right hon. Friend. The interjections of the Chancellor were to the effect that so far as the Bill proposed to take anything at all, it was only to take what people did not now possess. Well, if we
are to push that doctrine to its full conclusion, I invite the Chancellor's attention to the laws of inheritance, and to those questions of the transference of property which arise on the occasion of death. I know, of course, that the Death Duties and Estate Duties are very heavy now, but the dead at any rate can bear them, and I suggest to the Chancellor that if he is really in such dire distress for the few million pounds he is intending to take, he might go further in the matter of these Estate Duties and take that which no one now possesses. Will, therefore, the Chancellor apply the principles of this Bill, not to the poor, who alone are affected by it, but to the richer classes who can well afford the application of principles of this kind?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was much more candid than most of his colleagues as to the way in which this Bill looks after the unemployed. We have tried to extract an admission from the Minister a Labour that his administrative acts, his tightening up of the Regulations and his instructions to his staffs, have adversely—not in any wrongful sense—affected unemployment benefits. We have never been able to get that admission, but in the course of his speech yesterday the Chancellor explained to the House that we were paying less unemployment benefit now because of stricter administration. At the same rime, there was the quite conflicting and illogical claim that the number of unemployed was decreasing by the process of the workers securing employment. The official number is, in fact, decreasing by this process of the stricter administration of the law and of Regulations which deprive people of benefit, and which, therefore, cause less to be paid. We are entitled to denounce a Measure of this kind as Being in the nature of the worst type of class legislation which could be brought in.
We have often been unjustly charged with some wicked desire somehow in the future to make inroads on the savings of the poor. The Socialist, it is said, would endanger the hard-earned savings of the masses of the people. This is a Bill to legalise the immoral transference of money from the poor to the general Exchequer. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, for he is becoming actually the
chief Parliamentary marauder of the Government, attempting from time to time by one plan or another to raid whatever fund there may be anywhere for any special purpose and no matter how subscribed. Nothing is safe from him, and he asks us to be consoled with the idea that, after all, this transference of money and all the savings are to be effected at the cost of no money at all. That argument applied to the greater part of his speech—that nobody would be a penny the worse. The Chancellor can do much—but he is far away from the age of miracles, and this transference of money from one quarter to another is bound in the nature of things to inflict penalties that the poor cannot bear.
The Chancellor alleged that we were in enjoyment of growing wealth in this country. I admit that our wealth is growing, but the Chancellor is wrong in his qualification or description of that growth, for he spoke of the general and increasing wealth of the country. If that were true, he would thereby be making a most powerful case against his own Bill, for surely, if there is general and increasing wealth in the country, these penalties ought not to be imposed on one—and that one the poorest—section in the community, when they could be borne by other processes of imposing taxation. Wealth does increase, but its enjoyment is not general. In answer to the Chancellor, I want to adduce to the House the figures supplied to us quite recently by the Minister of Health. A return was lately issued by his Ministry which showed that on the last Saturday of the year in 1925 1,324,000 people were in receipt. of relief of one kind or another, that number being, by the way, about a quarter of a million more than were in receipt of relief when the Labour Government left office in l924. We do not seem to be the richer because of any change in the Government.
The Chancellor told us that as we travelled through the Committee stages of this Bill each Minister would be called upon to define and explain the appropriate Section of it relating to himself. I regret to see that the Minister of War is not present, as I would like to draw his attention to the effect of impoverishment, in spite of the alleged general growth of wealth, which I say is not true. We have had figures supplied to us within
the past two weeks by the War Office, and what does this impoverishment mean in terms of recruitment, with its special bearing on the question of physique? This Report of the War Office says:
Of the total numbers presenting themselves for enlistment only 36 per cent. were fill ally accepted.
We have the country plastered with appeals to men to join the Army—" See life at other people's expense "—and there is a response on the part of men, but so unsuitable are they and unfit physically through their living conditions and lack of nourishment, that only 36 per cent. of those presenting themselves are in a fit condition to be enrolled. The Report further says:
 It is apparent in all districts that the physique of those presenting themselves for enlistment is comparatively low, and that large numbers of rejections are due to lack of development. During the year a total of 52,207 candidates for enlistment were rejected as unsuitable on physical and medical grounds alone.
Can it, therefore, be said, when a test of this kind is applied to the working classes, that they are in that condition of robust health and physique to justify any narrowing of opportunities of medical or health benefits of any kind. I say it is a disgraceful thing to make the poorest pay at a time when they are not in such a position as to be able to do it. The fundamental error of Governments since the end of the War has been the failure to divert for national uses the improper fort Lines of war profiteers. I well remember the appeal we made to, and the sympathetic response of, the late Mr. Bonar Law, when we said there was a margin of wealth which had been improperly acquired by many thousands of people who had neither sacrificed nor served. That was the phsychological time for taking effective Parliamentary action, but a very large number of hon. Gentleman who then occupied seats opposite pitifully protested and begged the Chancellor to do nothing of the kind. In 1919, the Government of the day could easily have compelled those who had secured ill-gotten gains in that way to yield up much of their gains to the nation, just as millions of men had been compelled to yield up their lives.
The Chancellor is capable of big things with great opportunities, but his sphere of movement in this matter of
economy, he will find, will remain very much narrowed, for the largest single item of national expenditure is interest on the money that we borrowed and lent for war purposes. Incidentally, the money which we borrowed, and on which we are paying interest, we loaned after borrowing it, and are paying interest on the money that we lent as well, and are not receiving from foreign countries any of the money which everyone would like to secure. Let the right hon. Gentleman face that fact and not commit himself to this mean and petty device to divert the moneys intended for the redress and improvement of the poorer classes.
As I said when I opened my remarks, a good deal has been heard about pledges, and accordingly I would say that those who are the spokesmen of the Government should have proclaimed their pledges on the eve of the last General Election. As honest men they should have said that if the Conservative party is returned to power it will reduce the pay of the unemployed, it will deprive thousands of that benefit for which they have paid, it will invade the funds subscribed for health and unemployment purposes, it will lessen the grants available for education, and throw upon the poorest localities heavier burdens than ever were borne before. That would have been the pronouncement of honest men. They still have their opportunities. This is not a Bill for economy; it is a Bill for impoverishment.
The Government may rely upon its majority with its Whips in its hand, but I venture to say, if only out of respect for hon. Members opposite, that if they felt as keen upon this question as they felt in relation to the proposed grant of £200,000 for fields of play for civil servants, they would make themselves as freely heard as they did on that occasion. It was a small item, proclaimed even with the authority and prestige of a royal name, and yet the Government had to bow before the displeasure which their announcement incurred. The working class, it is said, are behind hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as ourselves, and they claim to he Labour Members, too. I say to them that this Bill alone touches adversely the poorest of the working classes, and if they wish to show themselves in any sense true supporters and representatives of that class, let them do
in relation to these proposals what they did in relation to the recent announced grant, or, if not, let them ask for freedom, because this is, perhaps, above all questions, an issue upon which they are entitled to vote as they choose, and I give them the credit of believing that if they had that freedom they would reject this Bill.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): In his opening speech my right hon. Friend divided his observations into two portions. The first part he devoted to a discussion of the Clauses in the Bill, but in the second part he entered upon a wide and comprehensive survey of the whole of our public expenditure. He defined in precise and lucid terms those parts of that expenditure which it is within the power of this or any other Government to control; and, finally, he gathered up the savings which this Government has been able to make in all directions, savings of which those proposals that are contained in this Bill are only a part, and he showed how they were related to that comparatively narrow field with which it is possible for us to deal. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with the arrangement of my right hon. Friend's speech. Thee said that his statement of the Bill was perfunctory. The right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), who has a taste for military metaphors, said he had concealed himself behind a smoke-screen, and the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J Simon), out of the rich storehouse of his experience of the arts of advocacy, suggested that my right hon. Friend said so little about the Bill because he was aware of the weakness of his case. Hon. Members who have been some time in this House with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have seen him in some tight corners, will, I think, at any rate, give him the virtue of courage and they will admit that he is about the last man in this House who can be accused of shirking his fences.
As a matter of fact, in this case there is no very formidable obstacle to cross. I hope before I sit down to show the House that we have no difficulty whatever in justifying the morality as well as the propriety of every Clause in the Bill But I cannot help thinking that those who
make this criticism upon my right hon. Friend leave out of account altogether the fact that he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is not concerned in a Debate of this kind with administrative details. What the country is expecting from him is to give it an opportunity of understanding how he is proposing to balance the public revenue and the public expenditure. He is the man who is assailed every day with indignant remonstrance because he has not cut down public expenditure by hundreds of millions of pounds. He very naturally, and, I think, properly, takes what, obviously, is the best opportunity that can be given to him to lay before this House and before the country a full and complete account of the expenditure, to divide that expenditure into different categories, to explain to us all, so that we may see for ourselves, what are the things he can touch. and what are the things he cannot. In doing that, it seems to me he is rendering a service not merely to this House, but to the whole country, which will, perhaps, be able to view what is certainly an obscure situation with a greater perception of the realities of the case than has been possible to them before.
I must confess that I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill with profound disappointment. I did think that from an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer we were entitled to expect something more than the barest debating points such as we heard yesterday. He had plenty of adjectives, such as "dastardly," "mean," "contemptible"—we know the stock-in-trade of the right hon. Gentleman so well. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had exhausted his vocabulary before he began, but we surely must have something more than that, because, after all, abuse is not argument. As, I think, Dr. Johnson said on one occasion
Inherent and radical dullness is seldom invigorated by extrinsic animation.
What was the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech? It was repeated by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and again repeated in another form by the right Hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). But there is a difference between the three to which I would like to draw attention. The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend when he
was opening his Budget promised this House he would make a reduction of £10,000,000 a year, arid that he did not fulfil his promise.
The right hon. Member for Platting said that he gave a most definite promise to the country that he would reduce the expenditure by £10,000,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about a number of pledges that were broken. It is easy to accuse people of breaking pledges if first of all you alter the words they have used to suit your own argument. I think it is the more in excusable because the right hon. Gentleman, who has had so much experience of quotations, should have taken the precaution of looking up the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT before he gave it, and have given us the correct version. What did my right hon. Friend say in his speech on he Budget? May I read his words again? The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I repeat what he said, because some hon. Members may not have been here. This is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I believe that we ought to aim at a net reduction, in the Supply expenditure of not less than.£10,000,000 a year. "— [OFFICIAL RFPORT.28th April, 1925: cols. 59–60, Vol. 183.]
"We ought to aim at." Is that a definite promise to achieve it? Did the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues always hit the mark when they were in office? If they had, they might have been sitting on these benches to-day. As a matter of fact, he did not confine himself upon that occasion, as he has on this, to mere abuse. He made his own suggestion as to how economy could really be effected. He said there were two ways in which economy could be effected—a reduction of the interest on Debt by conversion and a reduction in the fighting Services, and he went on to say:
 I believe it is in this direction mainly (that is, Debt conversion) and in the expenditure on the fighting forces that there is any possibility of reduction, because I do not believe it is possible to effect much, if any. indeed, I do not believe it is possible to effect any reduction at all in the aggregate of the Civil Service expenditure." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1925; col. 178, Vol. 183.]
The right hon. Gentleman has turned out to be a false prophet. My right hon. Friend has made a reduction in the Civil Service expenditure, not of £10,000,000 but of £12,500,000. He has done that by
aiming at something which the right hon. Gentleman did not think it was worth his attention to consider at all. Then we come to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I was disappointed there, too, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman would at least have lent his aid to those who were advocating economy. Not only did he find the reasonable proposals for the reduction of expenditure included in the hill wrong, but he seemed to think that we ought not to economise in any other respect except one. When it came to the Road Fund, he said there was an unlimited field for new roads to be constructed now. He spoke with praise and joy of what he described—quite inaccurately, I am glad to say—as the general attitude of boards of guardians to-day, for he said all the ideas that once existed of asking applicants for relief for information about their means had been swept away.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I never like to interrupt, but I must here. What I said was that the old bullying and hectoring method of dealing with applicants had disappeared altogether. I certainly never suggested that boards of guardians should grant indiscriminate relief without any kind of inquiry. If I created that impression, I am very glad of the opportunity of putting it, right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very glad, indeed, that I have been able to afford the opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to correct a false impression which he certainly made on me, but the only suggestion for economy he gave us was that we should abandon all means of defence, and that we should cease to burden ourselves with armaments, in the hope and belief that we should not have any war. I read in a paper a few days ago a letter from Sir Donald Maclean, in which he stated some of the old principles of economy, and added that it would be interesting to see how many voices would be collected in the House of Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday in support of these unpopular but vital principles. My right hon. Friend, who gave us his account of national expenditure, dealt with various points. I believe and understand that hon. Members, not alone in this quarter of the House, have been disappointed that the field for economy should be. demon-
strated to be so small. Yet I cannot but think it right that we should face the facts. I believe their disappointment arises from the fact that until the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and the tables which have been prepared and put before them, they had not fully realised the bearings of these facts, or the tremendous task with which my right hon. Friend has been faced, and with which he has so successfully grappled.
I propose to take the Clauses in the Bill which have been attacked. The attacks have centred around three subjects—education, unemployment insurance, and national health insurance. I will deal with them in that order which, if I may say so, is the reverse order of their importance. Clause 14 of the Bill deals with education. It was represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), and also by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, as being the re-introduction of the block grant system. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a replacement of the block grant system. Statements of that kind show how little the speakers have understood either the Clause or the block grant system itself. What is the block grant system? It is the allocation of a definite sum of money which is fixed upon to be paid out of the Exchequer to the local authorities for a definite term of years, that sum not being reduced provided that the local authorities maintain a minimum standard of efficiency. Provided they do that, there is no interference with them by the central authorities.

Mr. BARKER: A minimum standard!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman object to that? Would he say there is to be no standard for the local authorities to maintain? Would he give this money to them and say, "Here you are; you must not keep up any standard at all?" What is it that this Clause does? It is exactly the opposite of the block grant system. It is, in fact, the inevitable accompaniment of the present percentage system, because if you have a percentage system you must have far more interference, far more checks, and far more restrictions by the central authorities than if you adopt what has been described as the block grant system.
When the block grant system is introduced for education, this particular Clause will become obsolete. It will be unnecessary. We shall not want it any more. We are obliged to put it in now. What does it give us? As a matter of fact, this Clause gives the Minister nothing that is not really possessed by him already. That has been admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. On 8th February last the right hon. Gentleman the then Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher) said:
 Parliament has confided to the President of the Board of Education the very formidable powers of deciding whether any branch of expenditure shall rank for grant or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1926: col. 740, Vol. 191.]
As a matter of fact, grants have been withheld on the very grounds which are put into this Clause—on the ground of extravagance, and on the ground that the money ought to have been expended in a certain way. Why did we put in this Clause? Let me tell the hon. Member for the Wellingborough Division (Mr. Cove) the reason for it. He said that what the educational authorities wanted to know was where they stood. They wanted, he said, to have some certainty as to the relations between them and the central authority. That is just what they have not got now because of doubt about the working of the particular Clause which deals with this matter in the Act of 1918. This present Clause begins with the words:
(1) For the purpose of removing doubts‥‥
Clearly, therefore, that is stating in clearer language what has been somewhat confused by the, perhaps, unfortunate wording of the Act of 1918. Therefore this will carry out what my hon. Friend desires and tell local authorities where they are. I think it is only fair to them and to this House that the relations which are to exist between them and the conditions which are attached should be defined in the clearest terms.
There is next the question of unemployment insurance. What is the criticism there? Is it suggested that a single unemployed man is going to be worse off in any respect whatsoever by reason of the proposals in this Bill? [HON. MEMBERS" Yes ! "] I challenge hon. Members opposite to answer that question. The right hon. Member for
Platting certainly did so, but no one else has encouraged this idea. Of course, it is perfectly untrue. The benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act remain absolutely untouched by anything in this Bill. Does it touch employed men? I say it does not injure any employed man. It does not make him any worse off than to-day. It does not affect the contribution which he has got to pay towards unemployment insurance. What is the criticism? There are two criticisms that I have been able to extract from the speeches and questions of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite in this Debate.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite used language to which I must say I object. He referred to a breach of faith. Really, a breach of faith ought to be considered as a very serious offence, indeed, and the language will lose its seriousness if we come to apply it to everything we do not like. The use of these words are not justified in this case. What is it the employers are losing? They are losing their chance of getting one penny taken off the amount of their unemployment payment over a certain period of time. Was there a bargain? Was there any agreement? Of course there was not! What happened was that hopes were expressed that as unemployment went down the employers would be able to get this reduction of one penny in their contribution. They gave nothing in return. I will make the right hon. Gentleman a present of this. We plead guilty to the charge of having taken for the Exchequer what at that time we expected to be able to give back to the employers. But what are we doing with the money? We are using it to avoid further taxation, which is the very thing that the employers are pressing us to avoid. Therefore, I say they can have no grievance against us on that ground. That is the first criticism.
The second criticism is this: that we are always changing our minds, that one month we are legislating to increase our contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and then a few months afterwards we come along and introduce a Bill which is going to reduce it. How inconsistent. How uncertain. What a gamble. It seems to me that the fact is that in all this we are struggling against the petrified fossilisation of the party opposite. We change our plans because conditions change. They want to keep
theirs however the conditions change. But what is it we are doing in this matter? We had to make a calculation as to the Exchequer contribution towards the Unemployment Insurance Fund in order to make that Fund solvent within a certain given time. The essential factor in the calculation was what was going to be the average number of unemployed during the period. We made our calculation. We made our legislation to suit the circumstances as they were given to us at that time. Now, however, after a lapse of months, we find that circumstances have altered. We find that unemployment is steadily going down. Should it not be a matter for rejoicing for hon. Members opposite that unemployment is going down? I say this was our calculation as to what the contribution from the Exchequer should be. We are not robbing anybody because the industrial contributions have decreased and unemployment is rapidly disappearing.
But our calculations may be wrong and unemployment may turn out different to what we expect. It may he greater or it may be less. We take the risk. If we find that unemployment is higher than we calculate upon, then we shall have to come back and get sanction for the payment of further contributions. I do not say we shall, but that is one way of doing it. That is one risk. What is the other The other risk is of putting on extra taxation. Nobody wants increased taxation. The proposal here is the correction of a calculation made on information which was the best we could obtain at the time when we made the calculation, and which we are now able to correct in the light of later and more accurate information.
Now let me come to the question of national insurance, a most important item, one in which, I think, the largest number of people are interested, and in respect of which it is necessary to give the House information which will enable it to judge whether or not the criticisms we have heard have been justified. I think I ought to begin by saying what it is the Bill proposes to do, because there is evidently no very clear understanding of that. I think the clearest account of it was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham, and although I would prefer to state it in my own words, I do not quarrel with
the substantial accuracy of what he said. Let me say what it does not propose to do. It does not touch any of the normal statutory benefits which are given to insured persons. It does not reduce the value of the benefits received by insured persons to something below the equivalent of the contribution made by the entrants at 16. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley did not seem quite to apprehend this point, but he will find from the Government Actuary's report that the value of the benefits will still always be more than the value of the contributions made by the entrant at 16.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I take it the right hon. Gentleman means the contribution made by the man—or the boy—and his employer, excluding the contribution made by the State?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Precisely. I am talking about the 9d.

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman is surely speaking of 7d. out of the 9d.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not. That is where, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake.

Sir J. SIMON: I shall be glad to be corrected.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will come again to that point. At the moment all I want to say is that the 9d. the entrant at 16 pays entitles him to benefits worth 9.22 pence; and in the case of women the benefits are more in excess of the contribution. A woman is more costly than a man in insurance.

Viscountess ASTOR: And of more value.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bill does not touch the surpluses which are accumulated under the first valuation, surpluses which amounted to something over £17,000,000. The benefits which were decided upon by the various societies as the result of that first valuation will still go on, being unaffected by the Bill. It does not touch the surpluses which have been disclosed, or which will be disclosed, by the second valuation. surpluses much greater than those disclosed in the first valuation, amounting,
including the carry forward, to £45,000,000. It does not touch the surplus which has been accumulating since the second valuation was completed up to 31st December, 1925. Therefore, what it does do is only to slow down as from the 1st January this year the accumulation of further surpluses in the funds of the approved societies.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I ask a question on that? Was it contemplated in the original Act that this £2,800,000 which is taken would provide for additional benefits that now cannot be given?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall come to that point in the course of my argument, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will remind me if I fail to do so. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think we were trying to engage in some kind of jugglery by which we were going to diminish the State's contribution to the approved societies without the approved societies being any poorer for that diminution. We are not pretending to any such jugglery as that. I want the House to understand exactly what is the effect of our proposals, and not to think, as they might very well think, that we were raiding surpluses, or that we were going to affect anybody in receipt of benefits to-day, or to throw any society into a deficiency by reason of these proposals. That is one more point I wish to bring out—that we are not going to throw any society into deficiency by reason of the diminution of the State grant, because there is a provision, which was contemplated by the Royal Commission, for using the Reserve Suspense Fund for assisting any weak society which may he thrown into a deficiency by these proposals, and making up to it either the amount of the deficiency or else the amount of the loss. That, then, is what this proposal does. It slows down the rate of accumulated surpluses in the future. The House should realise that the benefits declared on the second valuation will he available up to the end of the year 1931, and that any benefits which might have been declared on the third valuation would net have come into operation until after 1931, so that there is still some little time ahead before even the effect of this slowing down will become operative. We are told this is a breach of faith. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says it is a breach of faith.

Mr. THOMAS: A definite breach of faith.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not care whether it is definite, or indefinite; if it be a breach of faith, it is wrong. I maintain it is not a breach of faith, and I will try to show that to the House. The hon. Member opposite who laid so much stress on this point, and who had evidently consulted with some care the Report of the Royal Commission, will doubtless respect what they have to say on this point. I would like to read a passage from their Report, which I think is very relevant to this subject. Paragraph 249 in the Report of the Majority Commission says:
In the pursuit of our task of reviewing the whole scheme of National Health Insurance, and considering what changes are desirable with a view to making the scheme of the greatest possible benefit to the insured community, we cannot take the view that we are limited by the necessity of adhering to any particular principles on which the scheme was originally set up, or by any statements which were made at the time of the inception of the scheme in explanation or in defence of the provisions contained in the original Bill. On the contrary, we hold that the National Health insurance Scheme was in the nature of a great and novel experiment in the field of social welfare, and that it must now be open to Parliament, untrammelled and unfettered, to review the whole scheme in the light of 13 years' experience of its working and to make such changes, however drastic, as that experience may have shown to be desirable.
There, expressed in plain and unmistakable terms, is the opinion of the Royal Commission itself as to this question of a breach of faith. They hold we are free and untrammelled.

Mr. THOMAS: On this question of breach of faith. I only want to ask a question, so that we may be quite clear. I think it was a breach of faith. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at Section 37 of the Act, which says:
All surpluses shall be applied to the provision of additional benefits.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We are told this was a contractual obligation, a, bargain, an agreement, arrived at after long negotiation between two parties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley put that case, and I quote him because he did at any rate take note of a circumstance which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnar-
von Boroughs has forgotten, namely, that there were two parties to this contract. He said the whole scheme depended upon this—that as to the money needed for benefits and administration seven-ninths would be provided by the contributors, whether employers or employed, and two-ninths provided by the State. Seven-ninths would be provided by the contributors. Seven-ninths of what? Seven-ninths of the benefits which were to he payable up to the age of 70. Are they payable up to the age of 70 now? No, there has been a change. By the passing of the Pensions Act last year the societies have been relieved of the cost of people between 65 and 70. They are no longer paying seven-ninths of the benefits up to the age of 70, as implied in the contract and bargain, if we are to take it as such.

Mr. THOMAS: They have got to pay between 65 and 70.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think, before the right hon. Gentleman interrupts me any more, he had better get a copy of the actuary's report and study it. He may then find an answer to some of the questions which he now thinks it necessary to put to me.

Sir J. SIMON: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] He has been most courteous in his references to me, and I wish to be equally courteous and equally correct in my questions. I trust I stated accurately that two-ninths of the benefits to be provided would be furnished from State funds. If, in fact, we now only have to provide benefits up to the age of 65, is that any reason why the State should not still bear two-ninths of the lessened charge?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has still not quite appreciated the point. The fact that these people between 65 and 70 were taken off the liabilities of the approved societies reduces the reserve values which are necessary in respect of them: and the actuary has pointed out that in that way the liabilities of the society are relieved of an amount equivalent to £37,000,000. That £37,000,000 does not belong to the contributors in the proportion of seven-ninths to two-ninths. That is due to the action of the State alone. The State would be perfectly entitled to say, "We will not alter the
two-ninths, but we will take your £37,000,000." They would have got then the interest on that money, which they could have invested at 5 per cent., and they would get £1,850,000 a year from it. I say that has made a great change in the scheme itself, and that that alone is sufficient absolutely to knock out of the water the argument that the Act of 1911 was a sacrosanct Act which must not be touched in any respect.
8.0 P.M.
There is another point with which I wish to deal. Hon. Members opposite have talked about a breach of faith. They have argued that any alteration in the scheme which was to the advantage of the approved societies but to the disadvantage of the State ought to be ignored; and they contend that if the advantage or disadvantage is the other way round, then they are entitled to say it is a breach of faith. But that will not do, because you must treat both sides alike. What was provided in the original scheme for medical benefit? The amount was 6s. per insured person. That was all that was provided under the original Act for medical benefit. When the Act began to work, it was found that that was not enough even for the cost of the doctors. That cost was found to be 8s., and in one year it. actually went up to 11s.. By an amending Act a new arrangement was made under which the cost of the doctors on the fund could be raised from 6s. to 7s.
That still left a margin to be found? Was it paid by the approved societies? Not a bit of it. They came to the State, and the State paid the difference, and from that time up to 1922 the State has paid for the extra cost of the doctors which was not provided for under the bargain or contract said to have been made in 1911. In this way the State has paid an extra contribution of no less than £19,000,000. In these circumstances, are we not entitled to take that into account? There are other contributions by which, when put together, I estimate there has been paid out of the Exchequer by extra contributions beyond what has been provided for by the Statute to the approved societies since the scheme began, a sum amounting to upwards of£24,000,000. There have been nine
Amending Acts since the original Act was passed, and the original scheme has been turned round and altered in all directions. Therefore, it is quite absurd to come to this House at this stage, and say that it is a breach of faith to make any further alterations.
I must say I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs expended so much of his captivating eloquence upon this subject. I wonder whether he remembers the Act of 1920, which was passed when he was the Prime Minister? The contribution of the State towards the benefits in the original Act was not two-ninths for all insured persons but two-ninths for men and one-fourth for women. In 1920, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs altered this contribution and brought it down in the case of women from one-fourth to two-ninths. According to this argument, you are quite at liberty to pluck the feathers from the pillows of the women, but you must not pluck them from the pillows of the men. Really that argument will not do, and hon. Members cannot justify the argument about a breach of faith any longer. The real thing is not whether we have failed to carry out a bargain which we are said to have made, but to ask, is it a fair thing to do what we are going to do now and is it justified upon its merits? That is another question altogether, and that is one upon which we may fairly argue. What is it that has brought about this extraordinary prosperity on the part of this fund? It is quite true that they were told, if they managed their affairs well, they would get the benefit of their efficiency and economy.

Mr. THOMAS: If there had been a deficit, they would have had to meet it themselves.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does anyone contend that these surpluses are due to efficiency of administration? On the contrary, they are due very largely to matters which were never foreseen when the original arrangements were made. Criticisms have been made in regard to the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the rate of interest, and it was stated that this was comparable with a repudiation of the Debt. The comparison made was one which
in the circumstances was not at all analogous. When the scheme was first founded, the Royal Commission stated it was in the nature of a great experiment. Surely, when we have in the past assisted this scheme so much, we are entitled now, when the Start, is contributing two-ninths, to take into account the fact that the approved societies have not only received a rate of interest of something like 5 per cent. which was only 3 per cent. under the original scheme, but they have accumulated surpluses largely at the expense of the taxpayers. I cannot understand how anybody can justify the statement that a matter of that kind is a repudiation of the contract we have made. Is anyone prepared to say, if at the time the scheme was first brought in it had been realised that the circumstances were going to be what they turned out to be in regard to the rate of interest, that the bargain would have gone through in that form? Of course we must review the situation from time to time, and we have waited for the Report of the Royal Commission in order to see what would be the margin available before attempting to deal with that margin.
With regard to the actual surpluses, I would like to put this to the House. All the schemes for the utilisation of the surpluses in the first two valuations have been based on the assumption that they were going to be applicable to people of all ages up to 70. As I have already pointed out, that will not be the case in the future, because the fund will be relieved in regard to obligations to people between the ages of 65 and 70. The effect of that is that, in future, the sum accumulated by way of surpluses will go much further than the sums which were accumulated in the past, because the fund will only have to provide cash benefits for people up to the age of 65, and I think that is a very important factor.

Mr. THOMAS: The last Royal Commission Report has only been issued since the amending Act establishing the age at 65 became law.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not alter the fact that the surplus in future will go much further than it did in the

past, because people between 65 and 70 years of age will not have to be taken care of by Societies in the future. What the House has got to ask itself is: are we not justified, when you consider that these poor people, the poorest of the poor as they have been described, but who nevertheless have got in the aggregate a surplus of over £65,000,000, which they have accumulated largely at the expense of the general taxpayer, in saying that we should slow down the rate at which they are accumulating these surpluses in the future at a time when the taxpayer is so heavily burdened?

I think I have now fairly dealt with all the principal arguments which have been brought forward in this Debate. You may think that this Bill deals with a small thing, but to judge it fairly you must take into consideration the whole of the circumstances which have been brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and you must remember how small is the field in which he has had to dig and consider these proposals in relation in the smallness of that field. There has been some expression of anxiety and doubt about our future prosperity, but you cannot expect to make reductions of hundreds of millions at once. Nevertheless, I say do not let us be downhearted about this matter. Do not let us lose faith in our country or make the mistake of measuring our situation by standards which have passed away for ever. We have to measure things now by the future and not by the past. There are always two sides to an account, and while we shall not cease to strive always for a reduction of expenditure, whenever we can do it without inflicting disproportionate damage upon the community, taking the nation as a whole, let us at least spend an equal effort to further the return of prosperity which must come some day, and which may come sooner than we think; and when it does come I think it will enable us to bear even these great loads with ease and equanimity.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 142.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Albery, Irving James
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)


Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. sir James T.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Applln, Colonel R. V. K.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Apsley, Lord


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dove-)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loder, J. de V.


Astor, Viscountess
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Looker, Herbert William


Atkinson, C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, L.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fermoy, Lord
Lumley, L. R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Flelden. E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Flnburgh, S.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bennett, A. J.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macintyre, Ian


Bethel, A.
Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macnaghten, Hon, Sir Malcolm


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macqulsten, F. A.


Blundell, F. N.
Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Boothby. R. J. G.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gee, Captain R,
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Malone, Major P. B.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Brass, Captain W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brassoy, Sir Leonard
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meller, R J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gretton, Colonel John
Merriman. F. B.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanbury, C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Murchison, C. K.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Neville, R. J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oakley, T.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oman. Sir Charles William C.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herberts.(York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perring, Sir William George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Charterls; Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Philipson, Mabel


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Holland, Sir Arthur
Plelou, D. P.


Christie, J. A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Pilcher, G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Homan, C. W. J.
Pllditch, Sir Philip


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Preston, William


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Radford. E. A.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Raine, W.


Cohen. Major J. Brunel
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ramsden, E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Remnant, Sir James


Couper, J. B.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rentoul, G. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hunting field, Lord
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hiffe. Sir Edward M.
Ropner, Major L.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jacob, A. E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley. Major G. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Klnloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Savery, S. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)




Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tasker, Major R. Inlgo
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Shepperson, E. W.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Skelton, A. N.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Tlnne, J. A.
Wlnby, Colonel L. P.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smithers, Waldron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Spender-Clay, Colonel H
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sprot. Sir Alexander
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. p.
Withers, John James


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Storry-Deans, R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wragg, Herbert


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Watts, Dr. T.



Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Sugden, sir Wllfrid
White, Lieut.-Colonel G; Dalrympte
Captain Viscount Curzon.


Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Ellan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sltch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A. (Brextowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Jones, T.I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S,
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Clynes. Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro W.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macklnder, W,
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duckworth, John
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (paisley)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Palln, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. RILEY: The Bill which is now being submitted for Third Reading brings the total liabilities under the Trade Facilities Acts up to a sum of £75,000,000, and, in addition to that sum of £75,000,000, there is a further £26,000,000 referred to in the Bill under the Export Credits Scheme. This means that, when this Bill passes its Third Reading, we shall be committed to a total liability of £101,000,000 guaranteed to traders, both as to capital and as to interest, for the credit of which this nation, directly, is to receive no benefit whatever. In the course of the discussion in Committee, an Amendment was moved from these benches seeking to secure that, in these guarantees of State credit, there should 'be some arrangement whereby the State gets some direct recompense for the enormous credit which it is offering to traders.
When the Bill passes, we shall be committed to a total guarantee of £ 101,000,000. It is reasonable to assume that the traders who get the benefit of the guarantee obtain an advantage of at least 2 to 3 per cent., as against the price they would have to pay if they borrowed on the money market. That means that the State aid is worth something like £2,000,000 to those who enjoy the advantage of it. In view of the issues which have been raised to-day in connection with the Economy Bill, whereby we are told we must do everything we can to minimise the State liability, this principle of affording State credit without any recompense is going entirely contrary to the policy that has been outlined to-day. I want, therefore, to urge the Government to give some consideration to this aspect of the matter. In individual cases, as set forth in the returns of the grants that have been made, I see sums amounting to as much as £2,000,000 to individual firms, which means a clear gain to the companies concerned of £50,000. Many of these guarantees will have to run for many years. I understand in some cases at least 20 years will run before the guarantors will be free. Who knows what
is going to happen in that period? The guarantees are given in some cases to firms who are doing work for new States, such as Lithuania and others, whose financial stability is not of the highest and safest kind. It is only common prudence, when the nation has been committed to such a vast sum as £100,000,000, which will be outstanding for 20 years, that some steps should be taken whereby the nation is safeguarded against the losses that are almost certain to ensue. Therefore I hope consideration will be given by the Government to seeing that there shall be some direct recompense to the State. If only l per cent. was earmarked as a return, that would be a substantial recompense to the State of something like £1,000,000.
The only other point I want to urge is whether something cannot be done in connection with the granting of facilities to remove the embargo that has hitherto obtained on transactions with Russia. From the outset it has been the policy of the Government to rule out of consideration any facilities for trading transactions with Russia. That policy is entirely out of line with the Act of Parliament that governs trade facilities. In the Act of 1920, whilst Russia was not excluded, the countries for which credit was afforded were specifically named. They were eight in number and they were only Allied countries and not countries that had been fighting as our enemies. In 1921 the Act was amended and that limitation was entirely removed, and in place of the limiting words transactions were permitted with any country. Why does not that apply to Russia? The Act does not bar Russia. It is a piece of administration which one does not wish to see dictated by political bias. Trade is being done. I notice in the Coal Report that in 1913 no less than 13,000,000 tons of coal were exported to Russia. Last year, I believe, only 2.000,000 tons were exported to Russia. If there had been the same willingness on the part of the Government to trade with Russia as obtained before the War, there is little doubt that, as far as the coal export trade is concerned, considerably more business might have been done, to the assistance of our depressed coal industry. I therefore urge that in these two matters favourable consideration may be given,
and an end put to the animosity that has characterised this Government in its dealings with Russia.

Mr. DENNISON: I desire to make a few observations on one point which did not to my mind receive the consideration of the Front Bench during the Committee stage. I refer to the guarantee that was given to the Appleby Iron Company of £600,000. I have no objection to the Government giving facilities to any particular industry where the evidence goes to show that it is in need of it, and I know of no industry where that assistance is more needed than the iron industry, but when I say that I am entitled, as one of the representatives of the workpeoples' side in the industry, to say that the Government is rightly and justifiably asked to state the grounds on which they single out any particular company for special treatment. There may be reasons for it. I do not know. We have never had any explanation, nor was any satisfactory statement made by the Government last week, as to why this company in particular should receive that preferential treatment. And even if it is going to be given, what is the composition of the Committee that advises the Government to give this special treatment to one company, or to the industry? We do not know who they are. For all we know on this side of the House they may be the most competent people to judge as to what it is right to do for the industry or any particular branch of it.
What policy, for instance, did the Government pursue in making this £600,000 grant to this company? Are the work-people engaged in the industry to have a say as to what is to be done with the money equally with the shareholders? If we are going to pursue a policy of subsidising the industry, or any branch of it, it is only fair and equitable that the whole industry should be consulted—not necessarily every unit but the representative section of the industry—as to whether it is wise to give a subsidy or a guarantee in respect of credit. We have considerable grounds of complaint as to the manner in which this business has been done. I know from inside information that the grant the Government made to the Appleby Company has caused a considerable amount of discontent amongst the workpeople and considerable apprehension on the part of manufacturers in
the same industry. For instance, there is at least 50 per cent. more capacity for the production of iron to-day then there was prior to the War. We were told when the. £650,000 was guaranteed to this particular company, that it was in order that they might develop their plant and bring their plant up to modern requirements. There is a tremendous amount of modern plant lying idle to-day in the steel industry. It is false economy to guarantee sums of this kind, for you will have to pay the bill, make no mistake about it. When economies are being effected at the present time at the expense of the workers, it is unwise to guarantee a sum of £650,000 to a company of this kind.
If the Government intend to continue the policy of giving grants to any firm or any branch of a particular industry, especially in the iron and steel industry, of which I know something, they would he well advised to take into consultation the whole of the representatives of the manufacturers in the industry on the one side, and riot to ignore the representatives of the workpeople on the other side, because they are just as much interested, if not more interested, in the industry than those who merely invest their money in it for the purpose of making profit. I hope that the observations which were made on this subject in Committee, and the observations that I have made this evening, will give some indication to the Government of the resentment at what they have clone and the manner in which it has been done. If this policy is to be continued in the future, I hope the Government will have some regard to the criticisms that have been made from this side of the House, and from the other side also.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I rise to express the hope that this may be the last occasion on which this House will discuss Trade Facilities Bills. I do not think that I should be justified in voting against the Third Reading of the Bill, because for many years one has been supporting, silently, Measures of this kind, and as I did not raise any protest on the Financial Resolution or on the Second Reading of this Bill, I shall not vote against the Third Reading. Sometimes one's eyes can be opened in regard to these matters, and my eyes have been opened very much in regard to what I consider the evils of the Bill when we
come to the particular question of the grant of £2,000,000 in regard to Kent coal. I look upon that as a very rash transaction from the point of view of the Government. Kent coal has been heard of and has been worked for many years, and never with success. I feel that it is a big gamble to put State money to the extent of £2,000,000 into a transaction which may possibly mean very serious loss, possibly the loss of the whole £2,000,000 and interest for many years to the taxpayers of this country.
If, on the other hand, the Government does not lose its money and the coal is produced, and put on the market, it will be in competition with coal produced in other districts in this country. We have at the present time trouble in the coalfields. The trouble is not that there is too little coal, but that there is too much coal. Therefore, you are subsidising production of what is not needed and which if it goes into the market will only interfere with and make more difficult the conditions in various other coalfields. In order, problematically, to find employment in Kent, you are possibly doing something to interfere with employment in Durham, South Wales, Northumberland, Yorkshire and other districts. The whole prospect in regard to the coal industry is so problematical at the present time that I think it is very wrong to subsidise one particular branch of the industry to the detriment of the others. This is, undoubtedly, a subsidy.
The money required for the development of the Kent coalfield could not be raised on the market at 5 per cent. without a Government subsidy. I doubt. if it could be raised at 7 per cent. If it could only he raised at 7 per cent. this guarantee means a grant from the general credit of the country—the credit of the country is not unlimited, and if it goes in this direction it will not he available to go elsewhere—of at least £50,000 a. year for a long period of years to this particular firm, in order that they may carry out their very desirable experiments in regard to Kent coal. I believe that if there is a. good proposition in regard to coal, the money could be found without coming to the Government; it has been found in the past, and if it is a sound proposition it will be found in the future. Although this
scheme may give a little bit of employment at the moment in providing machinery and work for sinkers and those who are developing the shafts, it will ultimately mean competition against other districts. It may be serious competition if this venture proves successful, and if it does not prove successful it means the loss of a very large amount of the taxpayers' money. I do hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall hear of Bills with regard to trade facilities.

Mr. TAYLOR: I wish to enter my protest against recent development of the policy governing the guaranteeing of trade facilities. We have heard from both sides of the House criticisms of the recent proposals to grant guarantees in the case of the Kent coalfield, and in regard to developments in the iron and steel industries. In both those industries at the present time there is more capital and labour than can usefully be employed. I do not think it was intended that the credit of the country should be used for the purpose of giving preferential treatment in the raising of capital in the money market to competitive industries which will compete with existing home industries. I urge upon the Government the necessity in the future administration of this Act of consulting the employers and the workpeople's organisations before projects of this kind are entered upon. If they cannot see their way clear to alter the composition of the actual Committee, I feel sure that it would be for the benefit of the country and of the taxpayers if they would consult the representative organisations in the trade that are likely to be affected, as far as any new proposals are concerned.
It is with some apprehension that one agrees to the continuance of legislation of this kind, because of its effect upon our national finances in other directions. It was stated, I think, during the Debates in the early stages of this Bill, that our floating debt is something like £ 700,000,000, and that within the next four years loans will mature for something like £1,000,000,000. In so far as the machinery of this Act is used for the purpose of creating new gilt-edged securities in the money market, so far will it be a disadvantage to the finances of the State when they come to convert outstanding loans. If we are to have legis-
lation of this kind in existence at all, it seems to me that the only justification for it is that it should meet exceptional circumstances and should not be invested in competitive home industries. I suggest that in the administration of the £5,000,000 which we are now voting by this Bill, the Government might pay particular attention to the establishment of new enterprises and new industries in the areas that are suffering from abnormal unemployment.
The problem of the necessitous areas is not altogether the same problem in each area. Each area has its own particular kind of problem. There is no doubt that in some of these areas the industries on which a large number of people have formerly relied for a livelihood have practically disappeared, any hope of resurrecting them is passed, and if the Government should use the national credit we are now creating for the purposes of dealing with abnormal unemployment in these areas by using this subsidy to start and attract new enterprises in these areas and alter the balance of employment and assist them to recover, that is the kind of use to which this Act may be put.
I want to take this opportunity of dealing a little more closely with an argument that has been used from the Government Benches by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade and later by the President of the Board of Trade. During the course of the Debate on the 22nd February, in reply to requests that were made from this side of the House and, indeed, from the other side of the House as well, for a more sympathetic handling of the problem of Anglo-Russian trade, we were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the export of Russian goods to Great Britain in 1924 was £20.000,000 and that Russia took from us £11,000,000. She had, therefore,£9,000,000 of credit with us. In 1925 Russia sent to the United Kingdom £25,000,000 worth and took from us £19,000,000, leaving themselves with a credit of £6,000,000. Therefore, in those two years, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, they had £15,000,000 at their disposal for purchases in Great Britain. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the House on 11th March, endorsed that point of view. I
am not anxious to score debating points on this matter, but I do want to ascertain the real facts, because there is a great disparity between the facts as I have collected them and the statements made from the Government Bench, and I should be very glad if some explanation of this disparity could be given.
In the six years from 1920 to 1925, according to my information, Russia bought from Great Britain approximately £66,000,000 of commodities and sold to us £63,000,000. In those years Russia actually bought, on the bare figures alone, £ 3,000,000 of commodities more from Great Britain than she actually sold to us. But to come to the two particular years mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, the years 1924 and 1925. According to my information Russia bought in Great Britain in those two years £42,000,000 worth of commodities and sold to us £45,000,000 worth. At first sight it looks as though there was a balance favourable to Russia of some £3,000,000; but let us examine the facts in relation to the Anglo-Russian trade. In order to arrive at the actual amount Russia derived from the sales she made to us it is necessary to deduct certain items and certain necessary expenditure. In the first place the freight charges from Russian warehouses to the place of actual sale in Great Britain must be taken into account. The insurance charges from the Russian warehouses to the place of actual sale must also be taken into account. Then the warehouse charges in Great Britain must be included, also brokers' commission and banking charges, and the whole Russian foreign trade, which in 1925 amounted to £114,000,000, was insured in London, or at any rate in Great Britain.
I am informed that the total effect of all these considerations would mean that a minimum of some 10 per cent. would have to be deducted from the actual selling price in order to arrive at the actual amount that would be left available for purchases. In order to arrive at the actual amount spent by Russia in Great Britain it is necessary, because Russia makes her purchases f.o.b. at British ports, to add freight charges to Russia, insurance charges and banking charges, and this would make it necessary to allow for a deduction of 10 per cent. from the figures I have quoted. The net result, if
my figures are correct—if they are incorrect I shall he very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the real facts—is that if we take Russian purchases in Great Britain for the years 1924, 1925, and add to that amount 10 per cent, for the costs I have mentioned, she purchased about £46,000,000. That is adding to the actual £42,000,000 a sum of £4,000,000 to cover the costs I have indicated. Then, if you take Russian sales in Great Britain in 1924 and 1925 and deduct from them the necessary costs that have to be paid for the services I have outlined a minimum of 10 per cent., deduct from that £45,000,000 approximately £4,000,000, the effect is that instead of there being a balance of £15,000,000 in Great Britain available for the purchase of British goods, there is actually a favourable balance to Great Britain of some £6,000,000 on the transactions between Russia and Great Britain. That is as against the £15,000,000 which the Parliamentary Secretary said was available for the purchase of commodities in Great Britain, and which both he and other Government spokesmen have been using as a substantial argument against. the extension of these facilities to Anglo-Russian trade.
I hope we shall have the full facts placed before the House and that. before long the antagonism and misunderstanding and difficulties between the two countries will be cleared up by a new Treaty which will settle all outstanding questions between the two countries and allow us to get down to the work of developing full economic co-operation between the two. As I have said in the course of previous Debates, I do not believe that all the faults arise because of the prejudice and stupidity of the British Government, although I think that in many directions they have shown a very mistaken idea as to our national interests, both on the trade and political side, in the handling of this problem. I believe and hope that Russia on her side will recognise that it is impossible for full economic co-operation to take place between nations, whether capitalist or Socialist, if there is not recognition of the sanctity of trading contracts between individuals. or nations. I am sure that Russia oil her side would not continue to send tint her goods unless she were cer-
tain that the British importer would honour fully any obligations into which he entered. It is just as essential that that should be understood and provided for on the other side as it is in the case of Great Britain. If the Government could see their way to state definitely the principles on which they would be prepared to enter into new negotiations, and the principles upon which a general settlement could be negotiated, I am sure that the conditions are such that a settlement would be possible between the two countries.

RADFORD: I am just as opposed to this Bill as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts), who spoke a few minutes ago. As I have not been fortunate enough to he able to sneak in the earlier stages, I wish now to detain the House for a few minutes. Although, if there is a. Division, I shall vote for the Third Reading, I should be sorry to do so without having put on record the fact that the Measure is one of which I do not approve. One very objectionable feature of it is the exhaustion of the national borrowing power. The capital of the country may he visualised as coming from three separate springs. No. I spring is the capital belonging to persons who desire a big return on their money, and who do not mind running the risk of losing their capital. No. 2 spring belongs to the class of people who arc prepared to run a certain amount of risk, and for whom such securities as the debentures of these commercial concerns would be an attractive and reasonable proposition, showing possibly 7 per cent. on the money. The third spring is the spring of money belonging to people, trustees, or those who for special reasons must have absolute safety for their capital, and are content with a small return, of 4¾ or 5 per cent. In the ordinary course, but for the Government intervention with these Trade Facilities, such issues as the Government have been guaranteeing the capital for would have come out of spring No. 2, belonging to those who are prepared to run a small risk if they can receive about 7 per cent.—prepared to lose 20 per cent, of their capital on occasions. But by giving these guarantees we are drawing on spring No. 3, the gilt-edged investor spring, and there is not an
unlimited amount of capital available in that spring, nor does it fill up quickly.
9.0 p.m.
There is no more important aspect of our national finance than that in the next two or three years, as our loans mature or are due for repayment, or the Government acquire the option to repay and convert, cur borrowing power should be at its highest and that spring No. 3 should be full and overflowing. Within the next three years there will be something like £3,000,000,000 of our National Debt either becoming due for repayment or the Government will have the option of converting. If at that time our supply of money for gilt-edged securities is full and overflowing, and the Government can convert their loans at a saving of something like 1 per cent., it will mean £30,000,000 a year off our national Budget without any repudiation or dishonourable taint at all attached to the action. We have been discussing for the last two days an Economy Bill. Hon. Members have laughed at its title. Of course, economies ate very difficult to make. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the first two-thirds or three-quarters of the £800,000,000 expenditure could not be interfered with honourably. But here is £30,000,000 that can be honourably taken from it if we can keep the national borrowing power unimpaired.
The next point is that the borrowing, or the guaranteeing of borrowings, is exclusively for large concerns. I am not imputing the least wrong motives to the Committee of Inquiry, but the very nature of the methods by which the money is raised puts it outside the reach of the smaller companies and concerns; those for example. with £10,000 or £20,000 of capital. There are hundreds of such concerns which could do with further capital. If a concern with a small capital wishes to borrow £10,000, even if the application were considered favourably by the Committee of Inquiry, the cost of going on the open market to borrow the money, even with the Government guarantee, would be prohibitive. A cost of £2,000 or £3,000 or £4,000 when you are borrowing £250,000 or £500,000 is a comparatively small percentage, but if you want to borrow £10,000 and you have to advertise and to make a public issue through the Stock Exchange in order to have the security marketable, the cost
becomes prohibitive, and probably 30 per cent. of the amount will go in expenses. There are hundreds and thousands of firms whose prosperity and development are just as important for the absorption of labour and the development of industry as these large concerns, but they are shut out entirely under the present system of administration of the Trade Facilities Act.
In this connection, in every part of the House, there is an earnest desire that the best relations shall exist between employer and employed, between capital and labour. I am sure that all Members who have any experience of industrial matters agree that small concerns are infinitely preferable to big ones for that good relationship to exist. It is my privilege to be connected with one or two small concerns, where the men and the directors are all intimate together, and understand and trust one another. That is not possible where you are dealing with big concerns, with £1,000,000 to £5,000,000 of capital. I do not, know whether it would he possible, in the period laid clown in this Rill, for the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure to see whether, by any limitation of the machinery or procedure, smaller concerns can raise, say, a minimum of £10,000, without incurring the expense of advertising and making a public issue. If that could be done, I am sure that it would further trade and employment.
If there is a Division to-night I shall vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, but I think it only my duty as a loyal supporter of the Government to gay that I shall be unable to give my support to any further extension of it. My last point is this. We refer to the Government's liability under these guarantees being extended from £70,000,000 to£75,000,000. I may have read the Bill inaccurately, out it seems to me that our liability may be anything in excess of £75,000,000, because under Clause 1 £75,000,000 is the maximum limit, on the aggregate capital amount of loans which may be guaranteed, but if we guarantee a loan which is not repayable until 1953 or some such period, the amount of interest for which we are incurring liability is more than double and may probably be treble the amount of the loan. Therefore, it is conceivable that in extending these figures from £70,000,000
to £75,000,000 we are agreeing to the extension of a liability which may reach £150,000,000 or £200,000,000.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) opposed this Bill because of some of the uses to which guarantees have been put. I am in favour of this Bill. I believe a Bill of this kind can be a, useful thing, and the fact that it is put to uses, with which the hon. Member does not agree, is not in itself an argument against the Measure. To-night, two cases have been mentioned. One was mentioned by an hon. Member who can speak with some authority on the steel industry. He complained that £650,000 was being given to some company for the purpose of bringing their works up to date, while many steel works, whose equipment is of the very best and most up-to-date type, are idle or are working short time, and so, he argued, there was no necessity for the guarantee. The other case mentioned was that of the Kent coalfield, and in connection with that I make this assertion. I do not believe it will be necessary to sink another pit for The next 50 years—and that is looking a long way ahead.
I believe there are already sufficient pits to supply all the output that we shall require for that period and even beyond that period, and that many of the existing pits have much better seams than will ever be found in Kent. If their equipment could be brought up to date, they could supply all the output necessary for a long time to come. I observe in the Report of the Commission which has just been issued that it is pointed out that many collieries are badly equipped. We have urged that point for a long time, but very little attention was paid to us. I say now, that if any guarantee is to be given it should be for the better equipment of the present collieries. There are, I suppose, scores of pits in this country with splendid seams which are idle or are working short time. There are others from which a large output could be developed at any time, and if guarantees are to be given at all, they should be given for the better equipment of those pits which have already been developed or which have shown the possibilities of being further developed.
I think it a pity that a beautiful county like Kent should be developed in this way, unless there is an absolute necessity for it, and I submit that there is not such a necessity. I may point out that this scheme involves moving large populations from places where there are already houses and all the amenities of our mining towns and villages. In order to provide for them, we shall have to use a class of labour which is already fully employed. I think it is not only a blunder but a scandal that a guarantee should have been given for this purpose, and I am afraid that influence and wire-pulling have been more effective than the desire that we should take steps to get a general outlook on the whole position. I venture to think that if decisions were to be taken now on one or two points which have been decided in this House in the last week or two, those decisions would be different. However, I support the Bill in general. I think its objects are good, but I think more care should be taken in the selection of the objects to which the credit of this country is being devoted under the Measure.

Mr. WALLHEAD: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has pressed a point of view which is rather important. We must consider the areas that may be brought into decay by the fructification of the Kent coalfield scheme. It is all very well to spend money in developing an area like Kent, in a manner which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is not required by the economic circumstances or even by the demand for coal, but if that area is to be developed at the expense of other areas and if it is to be developed because it will get its capital cheaper than other collieries, then it is not merely a question of moving workmen from one place to another, but it means ruin to a large body of traders. It involves loss to people who have put their life savings into various trades or occupations which have grown up around the existing pits and these people will not be compensated by the fact that land values and other values have been created in a place like Kent where they are not required by the economic circumstances. It seems to me the Government have been in a hurry to advance this very large sum for the Kentish coal area. I agree that, if it can be avoided, Kent which has been called the "Garden of England" should not be converted into a desolate area
such as some of those areas we now know. I it will be said that the development will be carefully watched. We may watch, only to discover while we are watching that we lack the power of control. The Government may watch carefully and may desire that no disturbance or disfigurement shall interfere with the natural beauties of a county like Kent, but in spite of their desires the power may not be in their hands to prevent the ruin being wrought.
I suppose the Government will get its vote to-night and that this Bill will pass away from the House of Commons. One can only hope that the Government will use the additional powers which it obtains wisely and well. I suggest that in this case consideration might be given to one view expressed from these benches. We have just been discussing national economy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us he will shortly present a Budget for an enormous sum. The demands upon which that Budget will be based have accumulated through various causes. During the Committee stage of this Bill I suggested that consideration should be given to the possibilities of export trade with Russia. I used certain figures which have been pressed home to-night by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor). There is one point in that connection. Fresh markets are required by this country for its export trade, but there is no good in trying to shift a market from one place to another. We want to extend the market, to make the market wider and deeper, and more receptive of the goods which we can supply. I suggest that there is an opportunity for selling to the reviving Russian State and to the Russian people, with their huge demands, some of the goods which we can produce here. We have a tremendous volume of unemployment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday indicated the extent of it, and I think we may take it that; he indicated as well that there is not much chance immediately of solving the problem or of reducing the number of unemployed to any material extent.
With regard to the burdens that we have to carry and the need for economy, I am not going into the rights or the wrongs of the question, but it has been stated in this House more than once that we have expended on certain adventures in Russia something like
£100,000,000. At 5 per cent. the interest on that is £5,000,000 per annum, and if it be true that the expenditure upon the adventures of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin cost this country £100,000,000, which we advanced for their counter-revolutionary war, and if that money is costing us £5,000,000 a year in interest, that interest has to be provided by the British taxpayer this year and every year. I suggest that taking up the question of export trade with Russia is the one way whereby we can get a return upon that gigantic sum of money which has been lost, and that there might be some means of recuperation, so far as the taxpayer is concerned, for the £5,000,000 which he must disburse every year in interest upon these ill-fated expeditions. I noticed the other day that a writer in the "Times" was arguing that there can be no trade with Russia until Russia has recognised the sacredness of contract. I agree that that is absolutely desirable and that, under the circumstances, it must be established as a fact, but I have evidence in my possession, which I offer to the House, to go to show that the responsible people in Russia are quite agreeable to accept that point of view.
The change in Russia took place under very peculiar circumstances. One revolution was followed by another, the second revolution being more extreme in its economic aspects than was the revolution of Kerensky in the early part of 1917, and at the end of 1917 the second revolution did take place upon a. basis of the confiscation of property in Russia. That is agreed. Whatever may have been the ideas of tine Russian Government that was set up after the revolution, at any rate constant touch with western Powers and the necessity for establishing contacts has demonstrated clearly to them that, whatever dispute there may be between the British Government and the Russian Government with regard to what might be termed governmental securities, at least the industrial securities will be recognised, so far as the Russian Government is concerned. As far as I understand it, and from statements that I have seen made by responsible Russian statesmen, they are prepared to recognise their liability in that direction, but, having said that, this must be remembered, that the British Courts will give no legal sanction to the idea that
there is anything of an illegal character in the Russian Government carrying out a policy of confiscation. Here is a statement by an eminent British statesman upon that particular point:
It is one of the most important principles of the Law of Nations that a stranger visiting a foreign country virtually binds himself to a temporary and qualified allegiance to its laws and submits to their observance, however unwise such laws may appear to be to him, however harsh and oppressive they really are, and however they may be at variance with his own notions of political liberty or with the impressions of a happier experience. Such an individual has no right to complain of the operation of the laws of a foreign State upon himself if they are executed impartially and in the same manner in which they would operate upon native subjects. The fundamental principle is this: an Englishman going into a foreign country accepts the authority of its legislation, abdicates for a time the benefits of British jurisprudence, and subjects himself to all the consequent inconvenience.
That is the statement of George Canning, who was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on 27th February, 1823. For over a hundred years that has been extant, and it is curious to notice that I got that quotation from the Russian Year Book, which was published for the edification or guidance of British business men trading with Russia, up to the year 1916. Up to that year the Tsar's Government was in full control, yet here was this explicit statement of a former British Secretary of State, George Canning, put into the Russian Year Book as a guidance for British public men. Why the Russian Government allowed it to go in, I cannot say, and whether they had any fear that there might be something happening of the kind that has since happened there, I cannot tell. There was, I believe, always a fear that something of the kind might happen, but it is very strange indeed that in the Russian State Year Book, up to the year 1916, this warning to British traders trading in Russia should appear as an authoritative statement. But I want to say again that this, I am quite sure, will have no effect whatever upon, and will not be considered or acted upon by, the existing Russian Government. As a matter of fact—and I say it with all due respect to hon. Members present—if hon. Members would study the Treaty which was drawn up between this country and Russia in the year 1924, I
think they would discover evidences there of the explicit wish of the Soviet Government to meet these demands of British investors in Russia. I can say quite emphatically, explicitly, and clearly that, as far as I know—and I have spoken with some of them very recently when they said it—they would be prepared and only too glad to do all they possibly could, for the small investors particularly, and for all investors in general they would be prepared to do whatever they could. On that point I would like to point out that on 21st December M. Tchitcherin, in the course of an interview, said:
I have not even an idea as to whether the British Government wishes to enter into an agreement with the Soviet Government. The proposed Anglo-Russian agreement made with Mr. MacDonald's Government has been rejected by the present Conservative Government. My Government has yet to learn the grounds upon which that was done, and what was objected to.
And M. Rakovsky had, I understand, already informed Lord D'Abernon, when he was British Ambassador in Berlin, that the Soviet Government were thoroughly desirous of entering into friendly relations with Great Britain, but until his Government were informed what the British Government's objections were to the Treaty negotiations with Mr. Mac-Donald's Government, his Government could not make new proposals. If that be so, then I suggest with all due deference that, if some slight indication from some source were given that negotiations could be opened up again, it would not only be of great importance so far as our own immediate donut stir situation is concerned, but of great importance for the international situation as well.
I understand that the Russians are desirous of repairing large tracts of railways and of opening up new tracts of railways for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles of railway. My hon. Friend the Member for the Kings Norton Division of Birmingham (Mr. Dennison) has pointed out—and he speaks with unequalled authority on this question—that 50 per cent. of our steel plant is lying idle and that there is not in sight any hope by any orders extant of placing the men upon full time There are in the steel trade about 45,000 men unemployed, and 50 per cent. of the steel plant is idle. Yet, in this one country in the world, they are anxious to develop large tracts of railway that would take hundreds of
thousands of tons of steel for the railways and they would consequently want an enlargement of their transport materials, like wagons and engines. Here, by opening friendly negotiations, we may get a chance of joining in the supply of steel to them for the work they are desirous of carrying out.
Surely that is something which every Member here, whether on these benches or on the benches opposite, could join in helping to bring about. I have no interest whatever in any trading concern. I am animated solely by a desire to see an end put to this deplorable unemployment in our steel trade. I represent Dowlais, where there is an immense steel plant, and where the men have been unemployed month after month, year after year. They have only been employed for a week or two intermittently now and then. I would gladly see those works going full blast again. If I could say one word which would assist in that, I would gladly say it. I hope that as a result of these Debates and these appeals, we may start trading with them and supplying their needs. We have been joined by Members on the other side of the House in making this plea. I hope that something may be done to bring about a happier relationship. That could be dome if the Government would make some inquiries as to how far and to what extent the present Russian Government are prepared to meet their just claims that there should be a recognition of the losses incurred through their action in the revolution. I am sure they are ready to meet those claims, and that a move could be made in the right direction of bringing employment to our people.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The criticisms, or perhaps I would more rightly call them comments, for I do not think I could call them criticisms, have divided themselves roughly into two categories. Some hon. Members have directed their remarks to the criticism of the individual undertakings which have been guaranteed under this plan. Others have gone further and have directed some criticism against the principle of this legislation altogether. Those are two quite separate lines of criticism. I do not think that it is necessary for me to follow those Members who have devoted attention to individual undertakings, or
at all events not in detail, because it may be remembered that, when I was speaking on the Financial Resolution some little time ago, I reminded the Committee which we then were, and I would like now to remind the House, that when this original Act was under discussion in the House of Commons in 1921, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day told the House of Commons that the procedure and machinery which was to be set in motion then was that an Advisory Committee was to be set up to examine applications that might come before it for Government guarantee, and that they would make their recommendations to the Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said, too, that the Treasury was going to be outside the picture altogether, and that the committee's recommendations would be accepted by the Government. I do not feel, therefore that I am called upon to defend in detail any particular recommendation that has been made by this committee. I would submit this suggestion to hon. Members. If I am not prepared to defend every recommendation of the committee, first of all the reason is, that it stands to reason that I cannot, and I think no Government Department can, have the necessary detailed information which would enable them to say that the committee, which they have set up, in any particular case is right or wrong.

Mr. DENNISON: That is a. very important question. Has any member of the advisory committee, who advises the Treasury in regard to these guarantees, had any knowledge of the iron and steel trade. as such? Was there any member on that committee who had such knowledge?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a question I cannot answer, because I do not know the mental equipment of the gentlemen who form the committee. If the hon. Gentleman asks me if any member is engaged in the industry, then the answer is in the negative.

Mr. DENNISON: Have they any knowledge?

Mr. McNEILL: How can I say?

Mr. DENNISON: How do we know, then?

Mr. McNEILL: What does knowledge of an industry consist of? Probably they have knowledge derived from personal experience, but it is obvious that, if you are going to deal with industry in general, not merely in this country but abroad, you could not have any Committee which would have personal direct knowledge of more than a small proportion of the industries with which they will be called upon to deal. I do not think that sort of knowledge is at all necessary for the purpose. Obviously, there must be always differences of opinion as to the merits of any particular guarantee that may be given. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have objected to the guarantee for this new coalfield in Kent. There are others, I believe, although they have not spoken here to-night, who think that of all the guarantees that have been recently made, that is the most commendable, because they think it is likely to lead to a large amount of employment. It seems to stand to reason, that whatever action a Committee of this sort take, there must be difference of opinion as to whether in any particular case they are right or wrong.
I will only say one word with regard to the guarantee for the Kent coalfield. One of my hon. Friends on this side of the House suggested that it was a very bad transaction from the point of view of the Treasury, and that the security was, or might be, very shaky. I do not think I ought to allow that particular comment to pass, because I do not think there is any foundation for it at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "But there is!"] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite is aware of what I am going to say, or has any particular knowledge on this point, but however much that transaction might be open to criticism from any point of view—and one hon. Member approached it from the aesthetic point of view, and said it was a great pity to destroy the Garden of England and turn it into a black country—a point of view with which I have a great deal of sympathy—there is no foundation for the suggestion that, as a mere matter of security, the Government guarantee will be in any danger. There can be no doubt whatever that the actual assets of the undertaking, whether they come fully up to expectation or not, are an ample guarantee for the sum of
£2,000,000, and, as the assets of the whole undertaking are a direct security for this guarantee, I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be under any misapprehension on that point.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of what is the nature of the securities of which he speaks? I understand that in the last few days Pearson and Dorman Long have appealed in the Press for £5,000,000, including the Government's £2,000,000, without which they would not get the other £3,000,000.

Mr. McNEILL: That is a point with which this Bill is not concerned at all. All I am concerned to show is that the assets which are security for this £2,000,000 are very ample for the purpose. There is only one other aspect of criticism in detail upon which I wish to say as short a word as possible, and that is on the subject of Russia. Three or four hon. Members have, not by any means for the first time, expressed objection to this legislation on the ground of the bad treatment, as they think it, which Russia is receiving. In these Debates hon. Members, time after time, have said, as if it were almost an axiom of the controversy, that the Government were actuated by political bias, political prejudice, and that if they only would clear themselves of that mischievous political bias, then a useful commercial transaction would follow. I think the political bias in this matter is entirely with hon. Members opposite, because you can have bias in one direction or you can have bias in the other, and I very much doubt whether hon. Members would ever have displayed this consuming interest in the question of Russia if it had been merely a question of Russian trade, as of Brazilian trade, Argentine trade, Chinese trade or any other trade. I think their real interest in the matter arises from the political events that have taken place in Russia.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as I am concerned that is not so. In the North of England we relied largely on Russian trade, and that is denied to us.

Mr. McNEILL: That is no argument against the observations I have just been making. It is not political bias that is
the motive of the Government policy in this respect. Hon. Members sometimes seem to assume that the Government are preventing trade being done with Russia. There is no sort of embargo. There is nothing to prevent anybody doing trade with Russia, just as much as with France or any other country. There is nothing to prevent them, if the traders of this country think they have sufficient security for their money, and if the conditions in Russia are such as to make trade with that country possible.

Mr. RILEY: Will they have trade facilities?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member who preceded me read out a warning, as I understood, that has appeared in the Russian Year Book. I do not quite understand what inference he intended to be drawn from that warning. I gather that that warning was issued with the approval or consent of the Russian Government.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Up to 1916—not the present Russian Government.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not care whether it is up to 1916 or 1926; it does not affect my point. The point is, I understand, that a warning was made that if any foreigner went to Russia, he must abide by the conditions which he finds there. I imagine it is precisely because our people are acting on that warning that comparatively little trade is being done with Russia. They know perfectly well that if they go to Russia or trade with Russia they will have to submit to the conditions that obtain there, and the more they know of those conditions the less they like them. There is a Treasury point I would like to submit to the House with regard to this whole trade with Russia. Hon. Members know that in the great balance of trade upon which our whole commercial existence depends, there are what we call invisible exports, consisting, among other things, very largely of the interest payable on investments abroad. It is because we have that large body of invested capital abroad that we are able to subsist, because it is by means of the payment of that interest from abroad that our food and our large body of imports come, and, therefore, our existence, one may say, not merely as a commercial nation, but as a people, depends upon the protection and the
maintenance and the encouragement of those interests, and exports.
A very considerable sum before the War was invested in Russia. Large sums of money were owing and are owing by Russia to this country, and if that debt were acknowledged, and if the interest were being paid upon it, it would come to as in this country, not necessarily from Russia itself, but from some other part of the world, as imports into this country already paid for, because of the money invested abroad. Russia has repudiated that debt, and all that the hon. Member for Merthyr said just now with regard to the possibility of trade appears to me to be entirely beside the mark. I am not contesting the accuracy of his facts. So long as Russia says that all British money that is invested there is wiped out, with no acknowledgment of the capital debt and no payment of the interest upon that debt, she is putting upon this country the commercial necessity of making good that large body of imports upon which she otherwise could have depended from other sources. We have to make it up by exports from some other source.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I made, that the Russian Government have expressed their desire and willingness to discuss the whole question and come to the settlement?

Mr. McNEILL: It is not discussion we want. If the Russian Government, through their proper diplomatic channels, announce to His Majesty's Government that they no longer repudiate their debts, then I have not the least doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have something to say upon the matter. I want before I sit down to deal with the larger subject, namely, the objection to this legislation as a whole. Certain hon. Members on this side of the House have stated that, they object to the whole principle of this legislation. I do not very greatly dissent from that point of view. I do not deny, I think few hon. Members of the House will deny, that in 1921, under the conditions which then obtained, and as art expedient for dealing with unemployment at that time, and the very high rate of interest, that this, particular expedient probably was necessary—at all events, it was useful. I agree it has remained useful, though perhaps in a decreasing degree
up to the present moment,. I do quite agree, as I have said before, that on principle it is unsound. It can only be a question of when conditions change to make it obligatory upon this legislation to be dropped.
I trust, at all events, it will not be my fortune to defend another Bill of this sort. I think I am justified in saying that before the House of Commons is asked to pass another Bill similar to this that the matter will be very carefully considered by the Government with a view to determining whether such legislation is or is not necessary. I hope that the House, which has shown no hostility to the principle of the Bill—no marked hostility—up to this particular moment, will now allow us to have the Third Reading.

Mr. PALING: Have the Committees Which investigate these questions any power to lay down the conditions when they are asked for a grant, and before giving it?

Mr. McNEILL: It is possible for them to negotiate with the people who are making application for the loan.

Mr. RITSON: What I am anxious about in this matter is that in the neighbourhood of my constituency, in Durham, Messrs. Dorman Long and Company have four or five collieries, and I was speaking to Mr. Dorman only a fortnight ago —hon. Members will see that I keep respectable company sometimes!—and he said that, so far as they were concerned. it was taking them all their time to keep their collieries going. They have iron ore very handy in the North of England. Now we are going to guarantee that firm to the extent of something like £7,000,000. I had a complaint from one of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters the other day, a coalowner in my own area who has large interests in Kent. He said to me: "Is it right that the Government should give a guarantee to a big firm opening out in Kent while we who are interested in the Kent coalfields have companies which have not paid a penny for the last few years?" I quite agree, it is not. If you are going to transfer men from the Durham collieries down into Kent because the owners have got guarantees, what are you going to do for the men? They have already
houses built. They have their families settled, and they have been settled for years and years. We in Durham feel the matter very keenly. One of these collieries, belonging to Messrs. Dorman Long and Company, has been standing idle for six or seven weeks. It reopened a little time ago, and we find to our dismay the present situation. We in the North of England were teaching ethics when you in the South were running about stark naked. I say we feel it very keenly. We have the coalowners today who are weeping across our necks as to what is going to happen in May. They tell us there is no market whatever in the world to-day. Then the Government comes along to transfer the burden from one shoulder to another.
We hear a great deal about the mining industry that is not very hopeful, but it will last a long time after the pessimists are dead. Science is moving in our direction and helping us in regard to the matter if we can get the finance out of the way, and we take up the cash value, not only of the, industry itself, but the people working in it. I have the greatest confidence that the mining industry will live on. But if you begin to transfer it from the North to a place like Kent which is beautiful—it is a very beautiful county—well, we cannot help but make this protest on behalf of our people who are getting very anxious about it. While I am one of those supposed to be levelheaded labour men, I always have a doubt about the level-headed man at any time, because when I was working in the pit, whenever I was supposed to get a good level I found myself invariably working wet, which seems to indicate that there is water on the brain. I want our people to be contented up till May. I want them to be contented after May. But do not allow the good feeling that would seem to be abroad to come to an end after a few weeks by encouraging a great big octopus like the Dorman Long Company to take away the men and their families from homes in the North of England to Kent.

Mr. ROY WILSON: In the Debates on this Bill during the last 10 days reference has been made to the attitude of the banks in regard to credit for trade with Russia. I want to assure the House of this, and I say it deliberately, that have the best reasons for believing that
the attitude of the banks in regard to trade with Russia is exactly the attitude which they took up about 19 months ago when the same subject was first broached. It seems to me that memories here are very short. It was not only a pronouncement by the bankers of London that no credit should be given to Russia so long as she persisted in the repudiation of her debts, but it was the unanimous vote of all the Chambers of Commerce in all the big cities in Great Britain, bodies which are free of party or political bias, that credit should in no case be extended to Russia until she had admitted her liabilities to this country. The reasons which prompted the bankers in the City of London to issue their manifesto nearly two years ago, and the reasons which prompted the great Chambers of Commerce to make the same representations, are these, and they cannot be too often stated: that once we in this country depart from the principle that we will grant no credit to a defaulting debtor who repudiates his liabilities, we strike immediately at the great edifice of credit upon which this country has built up its tremendous overseas trade and which has established this country's reputation amongst the nations of the world.
Let me give this humble advice to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wall-head), or any other Member who really desires to assist in re-opening the whole question of credit with Russia. The hon. Member for Merthyr told the House he had evidence, in his possession that Russia wanted to get upon proper credit terms with this country. If that be the fact, and I have no reason to doubt it, my advice is, let the Russian Government make their representations to His Majesty's Government through the proper channels. Let them say here and now to His Majesty's Government that they have withdrawn their repudiation, not only of their War debts, but those pre-War debts incurred by municipalities in Russia. with private investors in this country, and I, for one, am perfectly certain those representations will be received in a proper spirit by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MACKINDER: I would like to ask the hon. Member one question. He speaks with very great knowledge of the decision of the banks. May I ask him
if the Anglo-Czech Bank is not supported by British banks, and if the Anglo-Czech Bank is guaranteeing trade with Russia; and if it is supported by British banks, what is the difference between the British banks doing it themselves and the Anglo-Czech Bank doing it with their money?

Mr. WILSON: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the House, I will answer the question. I suppose the hon. Member refers to the Anglo-Austrian—

Mr. MACKINDER: No, the Anglo-Czechoslovakian Bank.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. WILSON: I do not know much about the operations of the Anglo-Czechoslovakian Bank, but I do know that no responsible bank in this country to-day is granting any credit to Russia where the risk depends upon the person in Russia. If they have a first-class customer at this end who will take the responsibility, and who is good for the responsibility incurred, that is their security, and they look to the security of that customer.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT)BILL.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would like to make a few observations on this Bill, with which, no doubt, many Members are already familiar. It extends for two years, until April, 1928, certain temporary provisions of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921, which was extended by the 1923 Act and by the 1924 Act. Four provisions to be extended by this Bill. First, it is to continue the arrangement whereby the
cost of all indoor relief is charged on the Metropolitan Common Poor Law Fund at the rate of 1s. 3d. per head per day, and the cost of outdoor relief is charged on the Fund at a maximum rate of 9d. per head per day. Hon. Members will remember that this Fund was established in 1867 with the object of spreading the burden of certain items of poor rate expenditure over the whole Metropolitan area, the idea being to relieve the poorer unions by getting contributions from what may be called, for this purpose, the richer ones.
Indoor relief, up to the Act of 1921, was limited to 5d. per person in various institutions, but owing to the increase in cost it was increased to 1s. 3d. by the 1921 Act. As regards outdoor relief, prior to 1921 this was not chargeable upon the Fund at all, but the Act of 1921 brought this charge upon the Fund subject to what was then known as the Mond scale. It was generally recognised by people in all quarters of the House that if there was to be equalisation of rates there must be some sort of standardisation of methods and scales of relief. In 1923 the Mond scale was abandoned, and an agreement was arrived at by what may be called the paying unions and the receiving unions. I remember that occasion very well, because I was present at the conference when the agreement was arrived at, and the figure, which was of the nature of a compromise, was fixed at 9d. as a maximum rate. So far as this Bill is concerned, we are asking that this arrangement should continue for the period mentioned.
We have received representations both from the unions who have to pay and the unions who receive, and the only matter upon which they both agree is that there must be a temporary extension of this particular Measure. Beyond that, I at once admit there was very little agreement. The receiving unions urge that the rate fixed is inadequate, and they point to certain figures which in their view indicate a rise in the payments that they have to make in respect of Poor Law relief. The paying unions have also made representations to the Ministry of Health urging that the charge upon the fund in respect of outdoor relief should be limited to 75 per cent. of the actual expenditure, or to 8d. per head whichever is the less. In that
respect, and in support of that representation, they say that there has been considerable extravagance in the administration of certain unions; that the cost of many of those unions is very high indeed, although the cost of living has fallen, and they think the present arrangement is not fair to them.
I think I can at once say that if there were any question of making this Act permanent it would have to he altered very considerably. There is no doubt about it that the chief objection to the principle contained in the present proposal is that it allows each individual union to draw upon the Common Poor Fund for outdoor relief to an extent which is practically unlimited, and I do not think anyone would now support a proposal of that kind without much more control of such expenditure than is provided in this Bill. As the House knows, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have announced that next year we hope to bring in an important Bill dealing with the reform of the Poor Law, and we are now engaged upon the task of endeavouring to arrive at some form of agreement with the interested authorities, and we intend to make proposals to the House dealing with the whole matter next year. I think that is the best answer I can make to the proposal that has been made by the unions who have to pay very large sums of money in respect of Poor Law relief at the present time. Their objections to this Bill are really fundamental, and what we want is a bigger Measure altogether dealing with the various objections which they have raised.
On the other hand representations have been made to us by receiving unions that more money should he paid, but I do not think we can ask those unions which pay such considerable sums to increase the amount that they have already to pay. Under those circumstances, all I need to say is that in this proposal we are simply following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who brought forward similar proposals when he was in office, and we are only asking to continue the present arrangement for another two years. My next point is in reference to certain provisions in the Bill to extend for two years the time within which
local authorities may borrow for current expenses for a period not exceeding 10 years. Another Section allows certain loans by local authorities not to count against the total amount they are allowed to borrow. We propose that the limit should be temporarily removed. A further provision suspends for a further period of two years the obligation on the Minister of Health to hold local inquiries in certain cases. That is the extent of the provisions we are now asking the House to adopt.

Mr. GATES: As the representative of the poorer part of one of the contributing boroughs I wish to express my disappointment that the Government have continued the provisions of this Bill, which are so absolutely unsatisfactory from a scientific or even from a representative point of view. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading has himself admitted that these proposals bear hardly upon contributing boroughs who have to pay very large sums of money without having any voice in their distribution or control over the expenditure. It is of course true that a very great step was taken in 1921 when, for the first time, there was charged upon the Common Poor Fund the cost of outdoor relief. Up to that time the Common Poor Fund had borne only the cost of institutional relief, and there has been a very large and growing expenditure in this connection during the last five or six years.
The amount was fixed in 1923 at 9d. per head per day, but when the borough I have the honour to represent, and the other contributing boroughs assented to this scheme in 1921, there was not one of those representatives who expected that these unsatisfactory proposals would go on for a term of six or eight years as is now proposed. It was said to be a case of emergency, and the contributing boroughs were very glad to help the receiving boroughs by allowing demands to be made upon them in support of the Common Poor Fund. These payments have now amounted to a very large sum, and the cost of charging outdoor relief on the Common Poor Fund up to the 31st of March, 1925, came to about £2,000,000, and my own borough has had to provide no less than £99,556, or a sum equal to a tenpenny rate in the Borough of Kensington. With all the good will in
the world, it is difficult for me, as representing a poor part of Kensington, to assure my constituents that they are paying higher rents or higher rates than Poplar or Bermondsey because their borough is contributing large sums, without having any voice in the representation, for the benefit of the unemployed of those districts.
I do not for a moment wish unduly to criticise the methods of administration in any of the receiving boroughs. With an experience now of 30 years of work in the administration of London municipal affairs, including a good number on the London County Council and other central bodies, I do know something of the difficulties with which what I might call the receiving boroughs are faced in the administration of their local affairs; but I do wish to impress upon the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary what I have no doubt they already well know, that formerly the granting of out-relief to the able-bodied was a very exceptional thing, whereas now, in a great number of boroughs, it is a universal practice. The mere fact that a man is unemployed, without any regard to the duration, character or cause of his unemployment, in many parts of London constitutes an absolute qualification for free maintenance at the expense of the rates.
I know that it was, as I have said, a great emergency that the Government had to meet in 1921, and it was dealt with by rough-and-ready methods, but whether it is necessary that those rough-and-ready methods should be continued for another two years I venture to doubt. Trade and employment are much better, the cost of living has gone down very considerably, and I do urge that, if we contributing boroughs are to go on paying and levying extra rates for the benefit of the receiving parishes, we are at least entitled to ask that the Government should set up a common standard of administration, and that there should be some protection, at any rate, for the Common Poor Fund from abuse by some of the receiving boroughs. There should be a most effectual reduction in the charges made on the Common Poor Fund. I am glad to, notice that, in the estimates of my borough for the coming year, the precepts of the guardians are substantially reduced. I do hope that that is universal, even in Poplar, and that the Common Poor Fund, therefore, will
be faced with lower charges for the coming year.
The evil of this legislation is contagious. If you take away responsibility from local authorities, and hand them over large sums of money for which they have not to call upon their ratepayers, but which are taken from contributing boroughs, it must weaken the sense of responsibility of the local authorities, and render them much more liable to yield to pressure and to give very much larger measures of relief than they otherwise would if they had only their own ratepayers to call upon. The Parliamentary Secretary has given, as a reason for this Measure, the coming reform of the Poor Law. I heard that story two years ago from the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, and my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Secretary, and I ventured to remonstrate with the right hon. Gentleman. He told us then that he was going to reform the Poor Law. That was two years ago.
I hope that the present Minister may be more successful, and that we may in the near future see a Bill from him; but there is a great sound of opposition, and, of course, it is possible that that opposition may prevent his Bill from fructifying. I hope it will not, and I may say at once that I, at any rate, am, not an opponent of his Measure of Poor Law reform. I burnt my boats, at any rate, in that respect; I gave evidence before the Royal Commission on London Government to the effect that I was in favour of a measure of Poor Law reform, and that I hoped the Government would adopt the Maclean Report.
There are just two points to which I should like to call the attention of the Minister. When the Bill of the Labour Government was before the House, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary suggested a very good Amendment. I know that he cannot move it himself, but, now that the Adoption of Children Bill is through Committee, perhaps I might be allowed to adopt his bantling. He suggested that, where there were any cases of irregularity or gross extravagance by boards of guardians, and the ratepayers did not pay their rates and were summoned before the magistrates, they should have power to plead those irregularities and abuses of the Act, and, I imagine, should be excused' payment of the rates.
It was a most ingenious idea of my hon. Friend's, and, as he is not able to suggest it himself to-night, I hope he will forgive me for adopting his child, and pressing it myself upon the Minister of Health.
Another point I should like to make is that, when the rates of 9d. a head per day for outdoor relief and 1s. 3d. for indoor relief were fixed, the cost of living was about double what it is to-day. I am asked to suggest that the Minister might seriously consider that the time has come when the charges upon the Common Poor Fund should be abated. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the figure of 8d. for outdoor relief, and I should also like to suggest that it should be 11d. for institutional treatment, leaving the medical relief at 1s. 3d. per head per day. I think the time has come when, if this Act is to be continued for two years, with the cost of living falling, and perhaps even failing more in the next few years, it is rather an unfair charge on the contributing boroughs that it should be fixed as high as 9d. and is. 3d. as in this Bill. I hope the House will not think the contributing boroughs, mine or any other, are trying to get out of any of the burdens that are common to London. They are, of course, always prepared, and always have been, to pay their fair share of the common burden of London. But the sums paid by the contributing boroughs are really very enormous.
I have mentioned what it costs in outdoor relief alone in my borough, but, as regards Poplar, for ever £ they pay £7 are paid by the other authorities, and that is a very serious position. In Westminster, the figures are something enormous. They represent a rate of nearly 2s. I am sure the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) would not suggest that the richer contributing boroughs were in any way trying to escape from their share of the common burden, but they feel that this burden should be levied fairly and should be distributed under a common form of administration, and some form in which they have some choice and control. This Bill puts upon them for another two years a very large expenditure over which they have no sort of voice or control, and with every desire to do what is right and fair, and to help in every possible way the
burdens of London, which, indeed, are centralised as regards the Poor Law to the extent of 75 per cent., all they ask for is that they should he treated with fairness and equity and should not be overburdened.

Mr. SCURR: I have been very interested in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Certainly in no provincial city would it be possible for us to have the two speeches which are likely to be made by him and by me on this question, because unfortunately the whole question in regard to London is the unequal distribution of population from the print of view of social position. The hon. Member who has been talking has been lamenting the fact that he had to pay something like a 2s. rate in order to contribute towards the disability of the East End of London, but when we remember that a penny rate in Westminster will bring in £32,000, while a penny rate in Poplar will only bring in £3,700, we see at once the great advantage Westminster has, and by reason of the fact also on account of its position that it is to the interest of the Westminster Civic Authority to keep it as a. centre of business activity and commercial activity, and not to encourage within it many poor people.
It means, on the other hand, that those poor people who have to be kept for the purpose of the industrial needs of London, live in Poplar and other parts of the East End. When you come to assess the burden of which the hon. Member complains, it is in every sense of the word a. fair burden. In the tentative proposals of the Minister of Health which are at present being discussed in regard to the whole of London, if the London County Council becomes the authority for dealing with public assistance generally, and as a result there is an equalised rate over the whole of London, the hon. Member will find that the burden will be greater on his authority than under the Measure now before us.
Charges of extravagance and maladministration are made. I am a member of an East End board of guardians, and previous to this year I was a member of the Poplar Board of Guardians. I have known of that board's work for a very large number of years, and I do not believe that the Minister of Health can say that his inspectors who have come down time after time, year after year,
to look into the administration of the Poplar Board are able in regard to Poor Law relief to find that it is maladministered in any sense of the word. I want to say on behalf of this board and on behalf of neighbouring boards of guardians, that they spend hours and hours investigating case after case. Because the total amount happens to be large, on account of our having a large amount of unemployment in our areas, we are charged with maladministration.
In the East End of London and in the South-East of London we have large dock areas, with the problem of casual labour, which throws upon us a great deal of responsibility which has not to be faced in Kensington or Westminster, and because our expenses have to go up on account of this, the only thing that can be thrown against us is the charge of maladministration. If maladministration exists, it must be a serious reflection upon the officers of the Ministry of Health, who have had facilities for years to examine our books and to look into our methods of administration.
My complaint is that the sum of 9d. is much too low and that the sum ought to be the one suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, 1s., instead of 9d. I have here a return prepared by one of the unions in London, and a union not under the control of wicked Socialists like myself, but under the control of sound municipal reformers—I refer to the Wandsworth Union. It is a statement of out-relief during the five weeks ending October, 1925, and it gives some idea of the problems which face the various boards of guardians. The total number of days of outdoor relief in the Union of Kensington was 7,805, and in Wandsworth 249,501. Kensington, with its small number of persons receiving relief, is able to administer at 6. 734d., while in Wandsworth, where no charge of mal-administration can be made, because it is a sound Tory majority, the figure is 12.695d. Without quoting the figures for the various unions, I would point out that Poplar does not give the highest amount. Bermondsey gives the highest with 15.64d. The average for the whole of London is 13.003d. When you have that average throughout the whole of the unions of London—14 are under 10d.,
and 11 over 1s.—I claim that one shilling is a much more proper sum than the 9d. suggested in the Bill.
I rather object to this continuous renewal for two years. The hon. Member spoke of the time of the great crisis which existed in 1921 when this legislation was first introduced. I had something to do with that crisis, and I was present at the conferences at which this arrangement was made. I agree that the contributing areas did recognise their responsibilities to the East End of London, but unfortunately employment has not gone down to any appreciable extent, and we have still to meet this tremendous expense. speaking as the Chairman of an East End board of guardians, the last thing in the world we want to do is to constantly give the public assistance we are compelled to give. We do recognise, every one of us, some of the disadvantages which arise from having to keep people for a considerable time in receipt of public assistance, and I regret to see that apparently there are no proposals for finding work for these people instead of Laving to receive assistance from the Poor Law authorities. We spend hours and hours on the Stepney Board of Guardians in examining case after case, and then re-examining them in order that we may deal properly with the money which has to be distributed. We know the great burden which we shall have to place on our own local ratepayers as the result of this expenditure, and we feel that a greater share ought to be paid by the richer boroughs, which after all enjoy the amenities they do enjoy because the poor are living altogether in East and South-East London.
The reason for these two years is the fact that possibly there is going to be a reform of the Poor Law discussed next year. I submit that this Bill should have been made a permanent Act, and that the figure should be increased to Is. until such time as the Poor Law reform is passed. If the right hon. Gentleman carries through his proposals next year the whole of the country will have to wait for a further year before we can deal with the London problem, because of its complications, and we shall find that we will then have to renew this Act for a year or two in order that the adjustments might be made. I hope in Committee he will allow it to be extended for a period
of five years and will increase the 9d. to 1s.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable to make this Bill permanent. One of its good features is that it is temporary, because the fact that the Minister will have to come down and get powers to renew these provisions gives the House an opportunity of bringing pressure to bear on the Government to have a real and drastic reform of the Poor Law. I was amused when I heard the Under-Secretary eloquently defending the provisions of this Bill. Only two years ago he stood in the very place where I am standing now and roundly denounced a renewal of the Bill. Now he is the parent of the child he denounced. I have his speech, but I will not weary the House with quotations from a speech made so short a time ago as two years. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary never anticipated that within two years he would be in charge of the Bill in an official position. But he did take an opportunity then of pressing on the Government the need of having real Poor Law reform.
I am very glad to notice that he is again promising that within a short period we shall see the provisions. I would this Bill to be for one year only, because. in 12 months' time we would again be able to bring pressure on the Government to deal with this problem on sound lines. I agree with the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) that the present situation is most unsatisfactory. The borough which I represent has a board of guardians beyond reproach. Its efficiency has never been questioned. It errs, if anything, on the side of caution. It is not tainted with any extreme views. But the members are finding their work most heart-breaking. The powers that they have are strictly limited. They can deal only in the way of relief.
I have been asking questions during the last two days with reference to the Central Unemployed Body, which was established before the War with the idea of making provision for treating relief on more scientific lines for London as a whole. It was a good idea and a. sound proposition. That body still exists. It has officials and a revenue and headquarters. It is doing some work. But somehow or other the Ministry apparently does not view with great
favour its activities, and is making no effort to stimulate it to larger schemes. Every Member, including the hon. Member for Mile End, agrees that nothing is more demoralising than constant relief. If only work could be found, any kind of work, it would be better for the self-respect of the recipients and for the community.
In London the provision of work is almost impossible because the areas are so small. While the Government is trying to hatch out its scheme for a real reform of the Poor Law, I beg them to see whether they could not use the Central Unemployed Body for initiating work and making some attempt to deal with this problem for London as a whole. Something might be done at the Hollesley Bay Colony and in other directions. There is really no central authority for London. The County Council as such is not a Poor Law body. Its powers are extremely restricted. It is quite impossible in London, apart from the provinces, to do anything substantial in order to find work, unless you have some central authority in existence to carry out the schemes. The Central Unemployed Body seems to provide that machinery.
I hope that the Minister will press on with his scheme, and will not be afraid of vested interests, and will not listen too much to existing authorities who may be prepared to follow out on large and broad lines the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law. They showed that to treat London satisfactorily from the point of view of the Poor Law, it is necessary to treat London as a whole. You cannot divide London into 28 watertight compartments. That has been proved by the financial expedients
which this Bill re-enacts. I do not think anyone will consider these expedients to be satisfactory. They go against all sound principles of taxation through representation, and can only be justified as a temporary measure.
Therefore, I press upon the Government that in the next 12 months they should take their courage in both hands and produce a Bill. I for my part am prepared to back them up—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Liberal party ! "]—yes, and the Liberal party are prepared to back them if the Bill is conceived upon sound, generous lines and without consideration for vested interests. I hope the Government will recognise the principle that the care of the poor of London is the responsibility of London as it whole and that they will see to it that the poor districts are not asked to shoulder the responsibility for the poor, who congregate in a poor area just because of its poverty. If we get those assurances from the Government then we shall let this Bill go through without much criticism or delay.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes before Eleven o'clock.